Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION
BILL (By Order)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL
POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 19th February.

NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

PORT OF LONDON BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 19th February.

LARGS BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provision Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Largs Burgh, presented by Mr. Secretary Maclay (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

Commonwealth Education Conference

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation (1) what additional measures arising from the recent Commonwealth Education Conference he is taking to widen Great Britain's participation in the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan by making awards for basic professional training unobtainable in the students' own country, undergraduate study at universities and colleges of adult education, and study at technical colleges below post-graduate level;
(2) what additional measures arising from the recent Commonwealth Education Conference he is proposing to take to enable more British adult education tutors and organisers to work on secondment in the newer Commonwealth countries.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will report on the results of the second Commonwealth education conference which he attended at Delhi; and whether any decisions were taken about associating the United States of America with this work in future.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I have been asked to reply.

Mr. Mayhew: On a point of order. I wonder if we might have some explanation of the absence of the Secretary for Technical Co-operation? It is a very long time since the right hon. Gentleman answered Questions and, by my reckoning, he will have gone for four months without answering oral Questions in the House.

Mr. Macleod: I am not sure whether that is a point of order. This is the normal practice when a Minister is away. While my right hon. Friend is away I have a general oversight of his Department and, obviously, because of my time as Secretary of State for the Colonies, I have a deep interest in the sort of work which he is doing. I should have thought that it would be wholly


natural that on appointment to that office my right hon. Friend should, following on the conference in Delhi—with which several of the opening Questions are concerned—seek to make closer contacts in the countries which he seeks to serve. I should have thought that the whole House would have welcomed that.
The Answer is that I do not think it would be appropriate for me at this stage to add to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on 1st February. A copy of the report of the Delhi Conference has been placed in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation is still overseas; he will no doubt be taking steps after his return to follow up the results of the conference as far as his Department is concerned and I am sure that he will wish to give the House any information that may be asked for.

Mr. Boyden: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that consultations take place with regard to Question No. 1 between the appropriate education authorities and then see that the blueprints of courses, and so on, are published. Concerning Question No. 2, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having discussions with the University Grants Committee, the Ministry of Education and the W.E.A. so that tutors and so on can be carried supernumerary on the staffs of English bodies and can go out without embarrassment to the home departments?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly consider those matters. The Delhi Conference flows from the Oxford Conference of 1959 and is to lead on, in turn, to a conference in Canada in a year of two's time. The point the hon. Gentleman makes at the end of his first Question was, in fact, one of the two principal offers put forward by our delegation at Delhi.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Delhi Conference ended on 26th January and, while we very much welcome the fact that the new Minister for Technical Co-operation attended it, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel, as Leader of the House, that it really is discourteous that he should not have returned by this time

to answer these important Question himself? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the Secretary for Technical Operation answered Questions was on 14th November and that the next time we shall have a chance to question him will be in April?

Mr. Macleod: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I feel that the point is misconceived. When my right hon. Friend took over these immensely important duties, because of the importance of the Delhi Conference he found himself in a part of the world where it is much easier for him to make contact with the sort of people he and his Department exist to serve and which has been set up by this House for that purpose. I should have thought that the House would have welcomed his tour there, and I hope that hon. Members will take as a substitute for him answering questions at the Box my own efforts today.

Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that tutors and organisers who are seconded will not suffer in their careers and pensions in this country by being seconded, in the same way as some overseas civil servants have suffered in the past with regard to their pensions from some Commonwealth Governments?

Mr. Macleod: That seems to be the key to the whole question of providing efficient technical services overseas. There are a number of consultations going on between my right hon. Friend's Department and, for example, the Ministry of Health and the professions concerned, to ensure that people who spend part of their service overseas—and this is of great benefit not only to the countries concerned but to the persons themselves—should not suffer in their career prospects as a result.

Mr. Strachey: Is not this matter of special importance for the newly independent members of the Commonwealth in relation to what is, I think, being called the dip or the danger of a dip in their economic and cultural level directly after independence? Cannot he go further than he has in telling us what the Secretary for Technical Co-operation may be doing in his prolonged absence to see to it that this gap or dip is effectively filled?

Mr. Macleod: On that particular point, apart from the ordinary follow-up which will succeed the Delhi Conference, the Department of Technical Co-operation is taking steps in discussion with British universities to try to stimulate the flow of British university staff on secondment to universities overseas. This will be of enormous benefit.

Technological and Technical Manpower

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what plans he has to meet the need for technological and technical manpower, especially in the under-developed countries of the Commonwealth, to which the Oversea Migration Board draws attention in its Seventh Report.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have been asked to reply.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation is well aware of the need for technological and technical manpower in the developing territories of the Commonwealth. His Department will, of course, do its best to meet any requests put to it from overseas Governments to help those countries in this field.

Mr. Fisher: Unlike hon. Members opposite, I am quite content for my right hon. Friend, with his enormous experience of these matters, to answer Questions about them.
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Oversea Migration Board that, unless plans for education and training are stepped up, our resources of skilled professional manpower will be inadequate—as, indeed, they are already—to meet the increasing demands of the Commonwealth? Will he confer with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education about this problem?

Mr. Macleod: The Report to which my hon. Friend draws attention indicates that not only in the Commonwealth but throughout the world there is a shortage of scientists, doctors, nurses and teachers. The Department of Technical Co-operation is trying, first by recruiting for service overseas, secondly by training people nominated by Governments overseas for this sort of work, and thirdly by

liaison with professional bodies on both expansion and recruitment, to see that the need is met.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent Report on the Long-Term Demand for Scientific Manpower said exactly the opposite of What the Report of the Oversea Migration Board says, since it presupposed a continuance of no more than the present rate of emigration of technologists? May we take it that on this point the right hon. Gentleman prefers to plan for an increase rather than to accept the present supply as sufficient?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that anyone can accept the present supply as sufficient. I was basing myself, as I know my right hon. Friend does, on the Report of the Oversea Migration Board.

Information Services

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what is the percentage increase or decrease in sums now being spent on information services overseas compared with ten years ago.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I have been asked to reply.
The increase is nearly 100 per cent.

Sir Richard Pilkington: That is a very satisfactory Answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the things in which there should not be economies? Are not ideas worth many battalions?

Mr. Thomas: I agree that this is a very important matter, and we should like to see these services expanded.

Television Films (Teaching of English)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what action is now being taken to increase the output of television films for teaching English overseas.

Mr. P. Thomas: I have been asked to reply.
Before deciding on the best action to take, we shall wish to consider the outcome of the consultation between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the


British Council, which I mentioned in my reply on 30th January.

Mr. Mayhew: There have already been several delays. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that foreign broadcasting, systems which want to obtain their English teaching films here cannot do so and they are going to the United States instead? Will he look into the matter urgently, and also will he decide who is to be responsible for producing these films, since there are too many organisations in the field?

Mr. Thomas: The responsibility at the moment is with the C.O.I. and the British Council. The subject is important but it is still at the experimental stage. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself said on one occasion that some of the experimental films which have been produced were bad. I think he will agree that it would be unwise to spend money on a major programme before ideas on techniques have been unified. We hope that that point is near.

Mr. Fletcher: Is there not an equally great need in these foreign countries where television is growing up not merely to have television films teaching the English language but to have the maximum possible number of television films of all kinds in the English language?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I agree.

B.B.C. American Service

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation why it is proposed to curtail the American Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. P. Thomas: I have been asked to reply.
As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 23rd January, this decision is part of a redeployment of the British Broadcasting Corporation's external broadcasting to countries where it can make the greatest impact. It has also contributed to the 10 per cent. reduction in our expenditure overseas.

Mr. Mayhew: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that cutting this service means depriving over 1,000 American radio stations of material which they have been using for several years now

in an output of 1,000 hours of broadcasting of British material a month? Is it not a very stupid little cut?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir; we regard it as an important cut. The point is that every other channel of communication exists between Britain and the United States, and we are concentrating our broadcasting on areas where channels other than radio are less developed or do not exist. As regards the number of hours of broadcasting, I am told that in the United States there are 6,000 broadcasting stations and their total output cannot be less than about 1 million hours per month. One thousand hours is a very small proportion of that.

Makerere College (Teachers)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many teachers were recruited from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, respectively, last year for the Anglo-American scheme at Makerere College; and how many teachers from each country are to be recruited this year

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have been asked to reply.
Last year, there were places for 160 American teachers and 10 British. This year it is expected to be about 50 or perhaps rather more British and 100 American teachers.

Mr. Thomson: Our contribution last year was really a very poor one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the scheme has been an outstanding success and is of immense importance? Will he assure the House that adequate steps are now being taken to ensure that, this year, Britain takes a proper share in it.

Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this scheme is not, as it were, the main scheme. It is supplementary to normal recruitment of British teachers for service in East Africa, and perhaps that more than anything else accounts for the proportion of British and American teachers. I entirely agree that it is a fine scheme. It emerged out of the Princeton Conference in December, 1960, and I think it will be of immense benefit to East Africa.

Technical Assistance (Expenditure)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Government on technical assistance overseas during 1961; and what was the comparable figure for 1960.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have been asked to reply.
The total for 1960 was £10·1 million The figure for the first three quarters of 1961 was £17·4 million; the figure for the last quarter of 1961 is not yet available. The increase in 1961 over 1960 is largely accounted for by the establishment of the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. The figures do not cover quite all the United Kingdom technical assistance effort, as some of it cannot be assessed in quantitative terms. They do include our voluntary contributions to the United Nations technical assistance funds and the United Nations Children's Fund, but not the technical assistance element in our regular contributions to the United Nations and the specialised agencies.

Mr. Prentice: I welcome the fact that the 1961 figure shows an increase on the 1960 figure, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us think that it should be a great deal larger still? Can he say whether in 1962 these programmes are likely to suffer from current attempts by the Treasury to cut Government expenditure? If there are such attempts, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence in the Cabinet to try to resist them?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot reveal Estimates which have not been presented to the House, but I think that it is reasonable to say, as indeed is implicit from the figures that I have given, that the trend of expenditure in this field anyway is upwards.

Mr. Ridsdale: Has my right hon. Friend any estimate of the help being given in technical assistance from the private sector of the economy? It must be quite considerable.

Mr. Macleod: I agree that it is substantial, but I do not think that I have any means of estimating it.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: While welcoming the increase in technical assistance,

may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will balance this against the information given by the Colonial Office this morning that Commonwealth Development and Welfare grants last year dropped from over £40 million to £26 million? Will he as the Minister with co-ordinating responsibilities for these matters consider the whole strategy of our aid schemes to make sure that the kind of aid which newly independent Commonwealth countries use to receive through Colonial Development and Welfare funds is not cut off abruptly but is replaced by new forms of aid to new Commonwealth Governments?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, but one cannot take a particular corner of the field. As more colonies become independent the amount of aid that we give to the dependent territories is almost bound to drop. But the amount of aid that we give to the independent territories is going up, and this must be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Industry, Mid-Wales (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances he has had from the Board of Trade that it will give publicity, in its literature to industrialists, to the fact that financial assistance is available from the Development Commission in his Department, so as to encourage the provision of industries in rural areas, and particularly Mid-Wales, as promised on 4th July, 1961.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I am assured by my right hon. Friend that the Board of Trade brings the possibility of obtaining assistance from the Development Fund to the notice of any industrialist who is prepared to set up in business in Mid-Wales once it is satisfied that he cannot go to a development district. In Mid-Wales during the last four years two factories have been built and the building of four more has been approved during the past year.

Mr. Watkins: I do not accept all of that Answer. May I point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Financial Secretary that there has been much publicity of the fact that the


Development Commissioners last week refused a grant of £350,000 for a factory in Mid-Wales? What is the reply of the hon. Gentleman to that?

Sir E. Boyle: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise that matter. My answer is that under the 1909 Act the Treasury has no power to override the Development Commissioners.

Mr. Callaghan: If that is the case, can the Financial Secretary tell us why the Mid-Wales Industrial Association, which sponsored this application, was not given the reason for its refusal? Does not it make a mockery of the Government's plans if a firm situated in Birmingham which wishes to move out of an overcrowded area into an area which the Government say that they want to help is refused a grant to assist in that aim?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. In answer to the first part, it has not been the habit of the Development Commissioners to give reasons for refusing applications. That has been the consistent practice ever since the 1909 Act was put on the Statute Book.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider this matter? Does not the hon. Gentleman know that this area in Mid-Wales has been losing young people and still continues to do so? Here is a firm which is ready to establish a new factory in the area and to bring new hope to it, but it is prevented from doing so because no assistance is to be given to it. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is very strong feeling about this in Wales? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider the matter immediately?

Sir E. Boyle: As I have explained, the Treasury has no power to override the decisions of the Development Commissioners. However, the right hon. Gentleman has done a service by drawing attention to the fact that the problem of Mid-Wales is essentially one, not of unemployment, but of depopulation. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that that matter is much in our minds.

Decimal Coinage

Mr. Grey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct the committee appointed to consider the practical aspects of the introduction of decimal coinage to advise on the extent to which further premises will be required for the Royal Mint, and to consider the desirability of siting such additional premises in Durham.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The cost of any additional capacity which the Royal Mint might require in decimalising the currency will be a factor for the Committee of Inquiry to consider. A decision on the siting of any additional premises if required would, however, he for the Government. I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Grey: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that Answer. Is he aware that if there is a decision to change over to the principle of decimal coinage the Royal Mint will be inadequate to produce the necessary coins? If it is necessary to find a site elsewhere, may I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Durham has suitable sites and the men with the traditional skills for the job?

Mr. Lloyd: I note the hon. Member's suggestion.

Trade with Japan

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain European countries trading with Japan are facilitating trade for their domestic manufacturers, by taking over blocked yen as a national liability and crediting their manufacturers with the domestic currency equivalent; and, in view of the damage this is doing to the United Kingdom export trade with Japan, what are his intentions in the matter.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no knowledge of this, but I will make further inquiries if the hon. Member can give me details of any case he has in mind.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British agents in Tokyo of British manufacturers are saying that if a German


manufacturer receives an order and is paid in blocked yen the German Government will release German marks to the manufacturer and take over the account of blocked yen? If this is the case, it is a serious detriment to our export trade. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make further inquiries of our commercial attaché in Tokyo about this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: We have made extensive inquiries in Tokyo through our Embassy and in Bonn through our Embassy, through the Japanese Ministry for Foreign Affairs and of the German authorities. If my hon. Friend will give me some evidence of what he alleges, I can take the matter further.

Crown Estate Commissioners (Coastal Area)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the coastal area owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners which has been disposed of by them in the past five years; what was the total sum received; what is the method of valuation adopted; and what rights of first refusal are given to public authorities to purchase such property in their area.

Sir E. Boyle: During the five years to 31st October last, there were ninety-eight sales of foreshore or sea or river bed under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners, involving a total area of 275 acres and a total consideration of £37,242. Valuations are made by the district valuer on the basis of instructions settled in consultation between the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Government. The practice of the Commissioners is only to sell foreshore or sea bed where it is to be occupied by permanent works, or where an adjustment of boundaries is required. The question of offering the sale of tidal areas to public authorities would arise only where works were to be carried out by them. Sixty-nine of the ninety-eight sales were to local authorities, Government Departments or other statutory bodies.

Mr. Thorpe: Does not the Financial Secretary agree that if foreshore owned by the Crown is to be sold it is preferable that it should be sold for public

enjoyment and should be in public ownership rather than that it should be sold to private interests?

Mr. Nabarro: Nationalisation.

Mr. Thorpe: Yes, nationalisation. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is anachronistic in 1962 to have privately-owned foreshore from which members of the public are excluded?

Sir E. Boyle: I would rather not get involved in controversy on doctrines, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners are anxious that local authorities should exercise local supervision and control of the foreshore where appropriate. It is the policy of the Commissioners to encourage local authorities to take regulating leases of foreshore adjacent to their areas.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it not advisable that some public authority, be it the Crown Estate Commissioners or anyone else, should accept and discharge responsibility for keeping the foreshore clean? It gets into a sickening mess from oil, insects and the like and no one deals with it.

Sir E. Boyle: The Treasury has a very wide range of responsibilities, but keeping the foreshore clean hardly comes within its purview.

Earnings and Productivity

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in earnings during 1961; and what was the corresponding increase in productivity.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In the first nine months of 1961, average earnings per head were 7 per cent. higher than during the corresponding period of 1960. Between the same two periods output per head rose by 1¼ per cent.

Mr. Ridley: In view of those figures, and in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's estimate that we can afford an increase in earnings this year of only 2 to 2½ per cent., will he refer these figures to Lord Robens and to Dr. Beeching?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that everyone is aware of these figures. Of course it is extremely important that we should try to put up output by increasing efficiency


and by the use of existing capacity. At the same time, I think that these figures show a necessity for restraint over personal incomes.

Mr. Callaghan: Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk about putting up output when it has been his deliberate policy since last July to damp it down? How can he expect wage-earners to be satisfied with statements of that sort when they know that the Government are keeping down output and propose to have an increase in output this year of only 2½ per cent.? Is it not time that the Government made way for people who are ready to stimulate production in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: The Government have sought to reduce neither fixed investments nor exports. If under the hon. Gentleman's policies one simply increases demand at home which will divert attention from exporting and attract further imports, the situation will become very much worse.

Sir C. Osborne: Since exports are the real key to our economic situation, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us the increase in exports in the same period?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give us the figures, why does he tell us that it is so important to do what he said earlier? Has not he read the Treasury bulletins which show that the output of exports has gone down since he introduced his measures last year. Is not this a thoroughly unsatisfactory economic policy of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should get rid as soon as he can?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question of my hon. Friend referred to the first nine months of last year. I have not the precise figure, but I think that what the hon. Gentleman says is wrong.

German Post-War Debt

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new plans resulted from his discussions at Bonn on 23rd and 24th March, 1961, for a more rapid payment of the German post-war debt of £67,500,000.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Repayment of the outstanding sum of £87½ million* was made in full on 28th April, 1961.

Mr. Davies: Does that £87½ million include interest on the original loan?

Mr. Lloyd: I think no interest was payable on the original loan.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stratton Mills. Mr. Rankin. Mr. William Hamilton.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Question No. 19.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry. On a point of order. May I not ask Question No. 18, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rankin. Question No. 18.

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to go to sleep, miss his Question and then be allowed to contract in in retrospect? Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member was snoring so loudly that we could not even hear you call the further Question?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard no point of order. Owing to something which was happening around me, the hon. Member was occluded from me, otherwise I should have seen his presence. Mr. Rankin. Question No. 18.

University Lecturers (Salaries)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring the salaries paid in the lecturer grade of universities into parity with those paid in the Civil Service principal grade.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that a pay link of this kind between these grades in quite different careers would be appropriate.

Mr. Rankin: Surely, the hon. Gentleman knows that the claim was submitted at the request of the University Grants Committee and deferred by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the fact that the pay pause has now to be stopped, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this long-deferred claim for parity might have the attention of the Chancellor and a declaration with regard to his intentions?

*Note: Mr. Selwyn Lloyd should have said "£67½ million".

Sir E. Boyle: I am well aware of the desirability of an early announcement and it will be made as soon as possible.

Civil List

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to enable the terms of the Civil List to be reviewed periodically with a view to amending legislation in order to ensure that such terms take cognizance of changed circumstances.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Why not?

Sir E. Boyle: I advise the hon. Member to read the speeches by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary on 9th and 15th July, 1952. They contain all the arguments on these matters.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Financial Secretary aware that some beneficiaries from the Civil List are anxious—indeed, they have expressed their willingness—to break away from the shackles of this gold-plated National Assistance Board? In those circumstances, could we not have a debate on these things so that we might lessen the impact of this cost on the Treasury, particularly at this time, when everybody else is asked to economise?

Sir E. Boyle: I advise the hon. Member to take my advice and refresh his memory on the debates that took place on the Civil List Bill in 1952. They were much better debates than the sort of debates that the hon. Member has in mind.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the loss of revenue in the current year, and in the ensuing full year, in respect of his announcement to remove grass cutters and lawn mowers from Purchase Tax; and what compensatory revenue benefits will derive in equivalent financial years from the imposition, also announced by him recently, of Purchase Tax on fireworks and why such Purchase Tax action was taken simultaneously for fireworks, grass cutters and lawn mowers.

Sir E. Boyle: Because the tax is collected in arrear, receipts in the current financial year will not be affected. For a full year the figures will be about £1¼ million for mowers and between £1½ and £1¾ million for fireworks. Both trades are seasonal and this was the opportune time for the changes.

Mr. Nabarro: On fireworks, can my hon. Friend say whether there is to be an exemption for rockets used by ships in distress at sea or by lighthouses? On the general point, can he tell the House whether this spate of Purchase Tax changes so near to the Budget presages or denies a general reform of the Purchase Tax in April next?

Sir E. Boyle: In reply to the second half of that supplementary question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement. In reply to the first part, I suggest that my hon. Friend put down a Question or write to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary or myself about it.

Mr. Nabarro: In this important context, did my hon. Friend remember the matter of Very lights as well as rockets?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that all these relevant matters were borne in mind.

Small Fixed Incomes

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the claims of those living on small fixed incomes to a share in the national prosperity will not be overlooked in the forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the position of those living on small fixed incomes will be very much in my mind when I am considering the next Budget.

Dame Irene Ward: After that quite sympathetic reply, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has read the speech of the retiring Chairman of Barclays Bank, in which he said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government had not been very favourable to those living on small fixed incomes? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take that speech into consideration and


do the utmost he can to redeem the lack of policy which was so detrimental to those people?

Mr. Lloyd: I have certainly read the speech of the Chairman of Barclays Bank. I have also read carefully the letter which my hon. Friend wrote to me and I will take all those matters into consideration.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Chancellor examine the allegation that during the last six years the burden of taxation has been transferred from the shoulders of people earning over £20 a week to those on small fixed incomes and that the proportion in tax as between the two has varied very much against those earning and living on small fixed incomes?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that to be the case, but I will certainly examine the hon. Member's proposition.

Agricultural Grants and Subsidies

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet completed his examination of the payment of agricultural grants and subsidies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The agricultural grants and subsidies will come under examination at the annual Farm Price Review this month, and the Government's decisions with regard to them will not be taken and made known until after that review has been held.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Chancellor say whether, in the course of that review, account will be taken of the recent Report from the Estimates Committee which asserts that the Treasury has no control whatever over either the total amount of these subsidies or the directions in which they are applied? In view of the fact that there is widespread feeling amongst farmers and consumers, and, indeed, butchers, that they do not have these incomes, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a specific undertaking that in the course of his investigations he will tell us where the money is going?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member is raising issues far wider than his Question. The time when these matters are taken into account is during the course of the Price Review. The time to debate them

is when the Government's decisions on the Price Review are announced.

Royal Opera House, Covent Garden (Grant)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new arrangements he has made for financial aid to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

Sir E. Boyle: Discussions have taken place between Covent Garden, the Arts Council and the Treasury about arrangements for determining the Covent Garden grant following the expiry in March, 1962, of the current three-year agreement based on 43 per cent. of approved expenditure subject to a limit of £500,000. The grant will in future be based not on approved expenditure but on reckonable receipts in respect of Covent Garden's home and overseas operations. The Treasury has also agreed to provide funds to complete the liquidation of Covent Garden's accumulated bank overdraft at 31st March, 1959, and to finance urgent and essential capital works at the Opera House.

Mr. Jeger: Whilst we all appreciate and welcome the increased aid that is being given to Covent Garden, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman realises that occasionally we ask Questions about increased aid being given to the arts and we are told, as in this case, that it is specific aid for a definite purpose, whereas on other occasions we are told that it is general aid to be applied as the Arts Council wishes? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time has arrived for a reconsideration and re-examination of the Arts Council and the way in which it spends its money, in view of the large increase which has occurred during the last few years?

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad that the hon. Member recognises the attention which the Government have paid to the arts. If on a private Member's day or some other appropriate time the hon. Member likes to debate the matter, it would be a good thing for the House as a whole.

Pay Pause

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of official warnings that Great Britain's entry into the Common Market would lead to increases in the cost of living, he will give


an assurance that he will not seek to extend the operation of the pay pause beyond the date of such entry.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In view of the decision on the future of the pay pause announced last week, I do not think that this question now arises.

Mr. Driberg: Oh, yes it does. Would the Chancellor not agree that the 2 to 2½ per cent. mentioned in the White Paper—which has already been made nonsense of by Dr. Beeching's latest offer, inadequate though that is—is just an extension of the pay pause? Is it not wage restraint to limit increases to 2 or 2½ per cent. and is this not, therefore, simply another form of the pay pause? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that, if and when we go into the Common Market, the cost of living will not go up by more than 2½ per cent.?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member's Question related to the pay pause and I gathered that he was referring to the first phase. As to future phases, I should have thought it perfectly obvious that there must be restraint over personal incomes for a very long time.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Chancellor not remember that in his White Paper he says that cost-of-living increases are not to be taken as a factor in the future determination of wage claims? Therefore, can he tell us, if there is a rise in food prices on going into the Common Market, whether compensation will or will not be given to wage earners for that increase?

Mr. Lloyd: I was dealing in the White Paper with 1962. What is perfectly clear is that if people pay themselves more than is being currently earned there will be inflation and a diminution of the real value of their wages.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if and when we go into the Common Market and have to meet the full blast of competition from Germany, France and Italy, to mention only three countries, that will be just the very time to keep a restraining hand on wages and incomes?

Mr. Callaghan: Are we to take it from the way that the Chancellor has evaded the questions put to him that the standard of living of people in this country is to be worsened if there is an increase in food prices on our going into the Common Market?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member has no business to draw any such deduction. What I am saying is that it is the real value of wages that matters, their purchasing power, and if increases go on at the kind of rate at which they have been going on the real value of wages diminishes.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, but does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the White Paper states specifically that a rise in the cost of living in future, during the so-called interim period, is not to be taken as a reason for an increase in wages? Does it not follow, therefore, that if there is a rise in the cost of living and no increase in wages, the workers concerned will suffer a reduction in their living standards? Is this what the Chancellor means?

Mr. Lloyd: I am determined, for my part, to try to break the vicious circle, because if increases in nominal wages are given on the ground of increases in the cost of living, the value of those nominal wages will decrease. We must have increases in personal incomes measuring up to increases of output in order to get stability.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Visit to Bonn)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, during his recent visit, was able to negotiate with the German Government an agreement under which they will pay their nationals who work for the British Forces.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Bonn of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Negotiations are still continuing and I would prefer to defer comment until they have been concluded.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that £5,600,000 is provided in the current Army Estimates for this kind of civilian service in Germany, may I ask whether the Chancellor can say that the negotiations will be comprehended within that sum or whether even more than that sum of money is being spent on civilian work in Germany in relation to the Army? Does not the Chancellor think it absurd that we should be spending millions of pounds to maintain employment in Germany when we still have 60,000 unemployed in Scotland?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, but the cost in Germany is very much more than what the hon. Member has said. It is one of the factors very much taken into account in the discussions.

Mr. Lipton: Why not tell the German Government that if they want British Forces to stay there they must pay the cost or alternatively let us pack up and go? Since almost every Minister of importance has now been to Bonn on one of these cadging expeditions without securing any material result, is the Chancellor not considering sending a delegation of Tory back-benchers who might be able to grovel with much better success?

Mr. Lloyd: These negotiations are still continuing and it is much better not to make unhelpful comments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister if he has yet reached a decision as to the advisability of convening a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to discuss the proposed entry of Great Britain into the Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): There is nothing as yet that I can add to what I said on 14th December in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton).

Sir T. Moore: In view of the fact that the last Prime Ministers' Conference succeeded only in driving our friends in South Africa out of the Commonwealth, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be cautious and think twice

before convening another conference, at least as at present composed?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. As far as the Common Market is concerned, I stand by what I said on 14th December.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could not the right hon. Gentleman at least say that it is his intention to convene a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference before any final decision is taken on this matter? Is it not obviously desirable that any proposals which Her Majesty's Government may wish to put on this matter should carry the consent of the Commonwealth with them; and is not the best way of trying to achieve that to summon a conference of this kind?

The Prime Minister: What I said, and I repeat, is that if we thought it desirable to have a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the right moment when negotiations had reached a certain stage I should be the first to welcome it.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it desirable. Could he tell us?

The Prime Minister: If it was the general wish. As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, I am only by courtesy, if the conference takes place in London, the chairman of it, but, if it is the general wish, of course we would like to have it. I stand by that.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I have this matter cleared up? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would take the initiative himself in ascertaining whether it is the general wish of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, at the appropriate moment.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if the speech about agriculture and the Common Market, delivered at Dunmow on 22nd January by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: In that case, since the Home Secretary was so much more candid with his constituents than


Ministers in general are with the House—for instance, than the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his evasive answers just now—may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would be good enough to circulate in HANSARD or to place in the Library the text of that speech, with its very strong warning about the increases in the cost of living that would inevitably follow entry into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I will find out from my right hon. Friend whether he has a text of the speech. If so, I will ask him whether he will send it to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister why no provision is made in the current Order of Questions for Questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about matter exclusively the concern of the Duchy.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the present practice has led to any difficulty. But these matters can always be re-examined through the usual channels if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Hale: is the Prime Minister aware that the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has always been on the Order Paper for Questions up to now? Is he aware that there is now no day for asking him Questions? Is he aware that I put down Questions to the Attorney-General and then he writes and says that he is transferring them to the Chancellor of the Duchy and I still do not know what I have to do to obtain an oral Answer? Perhaps it is a mistake, but it is a denial of our rights.

The Prime Minister: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's difficulty. Up to 1957 it was not the practice to make special provision, and then for a short time it was. Now it has ceased to be the practice, but if it is the general wish it is quite easy to make a change. In fact, only four Questions have been asked since 1957 of the Chancellor of the Duchy in relation to matters affecting the Duchy, apart from three Questions which the hon. Member has down for Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERGERS AND TAKE-OVER BIDS (CABINET MINISTERS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider making a new rule for members of the Cabinet that they should not benefit financially from capital gains made from mergers and take-over bids.

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that the long-established practice covers both the honour and duty of Ministers.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister not seen the calculation that one member of the Government has had an increase of £25,000 as a result of the I.C.I. offer to Courtaulds? Does he think that is a desirable state of affairs when he is calling for a pay pause in other directions?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is making a reference by innuendo to the Home Secretary, I must say that I think this is unworthy of him. He has been often a severe but always a fair critic. Everybody knows the long connection of my right hon. Friend with Courtaulds—a family connection. I can only say that on any occasion in Cabinet or in other Ministerial meetings when this matter has been under discussion my right hon. Friend has absented himself from those meetings.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION BROADCAST)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the uncertainty which exists amongst hon. Members about his television broadcast on national affairs on 24th January; and if he will place a copy of the text in House of Commons Library.

The Prime Minister: I do not think this plan is in accordance with precedent. If the hon. Member would like a transcript. I will see whether I can feet one for him.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unlike the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), I saw the broadcast, and that President Kennedy's stimulating State of


the Union Message stands out in contrast to the Prime Minister's arrogant soporifics?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman saw the broadcast I do not understand why he wants another copy of it, unless it was so good.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that part of the uncertainty referred to by my hon. Friend is due to the fact that many people believe that it was not really the Prime Minister on television? Is he aware that it is widely believed that it was, in fact, an actor from "Beyond the Fringe"?

The Prime Minister: I am very glad to see such good co-operation between above and below the Gangway opposite in the preparation of this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD PEOPLE

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge to undertake a further up-to-date survey as a matter of urgency on the economic circumstances of old people.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that such a survey is called for.

Dame Irene Ward: If my right hon. Friend is not aware of these facts, how many people in the affluent section of society know how others, living on small fixed incomes or drawing retirement pensions and faced with increases in the prices of coal, gas and electricity—[HON. MEMBERS: "And rents."]—are to manage substantially for the next month or two of the winter? Does not he think that it would be a good idea to hold an inquiry into what was said in this Report to see what we can do to enable these in the more affluent section to do their duty by those not so well off?

The Prime Minister: The real value of retirement pensions and assistance rates has been considerably improved since the last survey, referred to last week when I undertook to see what action was proposed. A survey, in much the same form but in a limited field, is being carried out by the Government Social Survey in order to discover the

ability of old people to cope with difficulties in their homes. It is being held in Lewisham and began in 1961. I understand that the information will be provided next May.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister cast doubt on the value of the Cambridge survey because the sample was too small, what will be the sample in the Lewisham inquiry?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the inquiry covers all old people in the town.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I agree with him that a new survey is wholly unnecessary? Is he aware also that apparently everyone, except members of the Cabinet, is aware from daily experience that one cannot really get old people nourished and warm and looked after properly with the present rates?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that there are problems, but I would point out that there has not been a period when the position of retirement pensions and assistance benefits has not been improved, and when they have not been given better support in one year than in the year before.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while there have been these increases, the general community is not satisfied that these old people are properly provided for? Is he aware that that is what I am trying to ask him to bear in mind? I am delighted to know about the Lewisham survey, but can we not get on with trying to do something for these people?

The Prime Minister: We have done a great deal and we shall do anything more that we can possibly do.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Mr. Emyrs Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he discusses Government policy with the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Prime Minister: As much as I consider necessary.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Governor of the Bank of


England said last week that the people of Britain had been living in an "illusory era of well-being"? Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the Governor before he made his famous speech saying to the people, "You have never had it so good"?

The Prime Minister: The Governor is entitled to express his own views on the problems which the Government have to face. It is not necessary for him to seek either approval or disapproval by me or anybody else.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. KHRUSHCHEV

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider inviting the Prime Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr. Khrushchev, to visit the United Kingdom, or, alternatively, if he will propose to Mr. Khrushchev that they should meet in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister: A meeting with Mr. Khrushchev is always an interesting experience. But for a meeting to be valuable the time must be opportune.

Mr. Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Geneva Conference on the banning of nuclear tests is almost, if not quite, dead? May I ask, without being facetious, whether it is not time that the Government did some rethinking about their foreign policy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House would agree to his going to the Soviet Union or to Mr. Khrushchev's coming here if it would do something to allay apprehension in this country?

The Prime Minister: I am fully in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I intend to see whether some progress can be made. I hope to make a statement on the nuclear tests conference shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEQUERS

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister on how many days during 1961 he was in residence at Chequers.

The Prime Minister: I was at Chequers for part or the whole of fifty-four days in 1961.

Mr. Lipton: Even though the Prime Minister is not going to stay at Chequers very much longer, will he nevertheless note that the cost of the thirteen cooks and stewardesses comes to £7,500—which is a lot of money to spend for fifty-four days?

The Prime Minister: Chequers was a generous gift which has been of great value to my predecessors and to me, and, indeed, will be to my successors. It is used in accordance with the grant, and I have made arrangements for other Ministers to use it when I am not using it myself. It is used not merely for the personal recreation of Ministers—indeed, less and less so—but for entertaining visitors from the Commonwealth and the Colonies and foreign countries, and to hold conferences of different kinds. I do not, therefore, think that it would be right, at any rate without very great consideration, to consider repudiating this trust?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIES (CHEMICALS AND MAN-MADE FIBRES)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the President of the Board of Trade and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to prepare legislation for the appointment of a public corporation to take over the chemical industry and those industries concerned with the production of manmade fibres.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not that a somewhat strange reply? Would not my proposition relieve the Government of their difficulties about mergers? Instead of merging these two very important firms—which is regarded as being in the national interest—is it not a more rational proposition to serve the national interest fully by taking them over?

The Prime Minister: I understood that, at the last General Election, the country rejected the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman for the nationalisation of the chemical industry. No doubt the electorate will be invited to consider this and other old nostrums of the party opposite on some future occasion.

Mr. Shinwell: Have not many changes taken place in Government policy since


the last election? Can the right hon. Gentleman recall some of the pledges he made about security and the people never having it so good?

The Prime Minister: I understand, unless I misinterpret, that there is not the same keenness for broad nationalisation as there was once in the Socialist Party.

Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. hon. Friend think it extraordinary that, despite the temporary disadvantages of the Tory Party, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends should continue to advocate this millstone of theirs about nationalisation?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that since the Government propose, apparently, to do nothing to stop the formation of huge mergers and private monopolies, there emerges a powerful case for making those monopolies public?

The Prime Minister: No doubt that will be put before the country in due course when the new text of the revised version of Clause 4 has been finally agreed.

Mr. Wade: As an alternative to the procedure of nationalisation, which the Opposition favour, will the Prime Minister seriously consider some new procedure for dealing with these great mergers which involve important questions of national interest? Is it not desirable that consent should be obtained before the merger takes place, rather than that there should be consideration long afterwards when it may be too late to do anything about it?

The Prime Minister: That matter was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who explained the review which the Government are now making of this problem.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people engaged in the man-made fibre industry would regard nationalisation as an absolute disaster; but that we would rather have two suppliers of our raw material than one? Cannot something be done to see that we do?

The Prime Minister: This matter has been raised before in Questions and I

understand that it is likely to be raised again in debate.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the Prime Minister recall his many years' advocacy of the public ownership and control of public utilities? Does he not consider that some of the ideas of his youth and middle age may be apposite in the present situation, when dangerous giant monopolies are developing almost every month?

The Prime Minister: I do not retreat from those views, but I do not think that an industry making these products, faced with tremendous competition from Europe and the United States, can be called a public utility.

THE WEST INDIES

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the West Indies.
As the House is aware, I paid a visit to the West Indies from 13th to 28th January. My object was to discuss with the leaders of the Governments in the Eastern Caribbean the situation arising from Jamaica's desire to leave the Federation. During my visit I had talks with the Federal Government and with the Premiers of Barbados and Trinidad, as well as with Chief Ministers of all the Leeward and Windward Islands which form part of the Federation of the West Indies.
My talks revealed that we face this situation: Jamaica has declared its determination to withdraw from the Federation and this decision has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago have decided not to participate in any federation of the Eastern Caribbean. Finally, the Premier of Barbados and the Chief Ministers of the Leeward and Windward Islands, while advocating a new federation between their territries, are agreed that the present one should be dissolved.
In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have with regret reached the conclusion that they have no alternative but to arrange for the dissolution of the present Federation.
Under the Federation, however, a number of common services of great value have been operating in the area. We are anxious to ensure their continuation on a regional basis pending clarification of the constitutional position throughout the area.
Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, decided to introduce legislation into Parliament very shortly which will enable us to dissolve the present Federation, and to set up an interim organisation, under a Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty's Government, which will be responsible for running the common services for the time being, until some more permanent arrangements for their operation can be worked out in conjunction with the Governments of the West Indies.
Her Majesty's Government regard the suggested federation of Barbados and the Leeward and Windward Islands as a promising development. They consider, however, that a great deal of careful study both here and in the West Indies will be needed before any final decisions can be taken and they propose for their part to initiate this study in the very near future.

Mr. Healey: While I am sure that all of us regret the collapse of the original plans for a Caribbean Federation, may I express what I am sure are the wishes of the whole House, that Jamaica and Trinidad shall prosper as independent States within the Commonwealth?
Will the Colonial Secretary accede to the wishes of all parties in Jamaica that the independence celebrations should be enabled to take place before the hurricane season in the West Indies begins, in mid-August?
On the largest question of the West Indian territories as a whole, may I say that we would support any decision which Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned may take to ensure continuation of existing common services? While recognising the need for the maximum unity among the smaller islands, now left rather ship-wrecked on their own outside the original plans for federation, may I ask the Colonial Secretary not to close his mind to the possibility of organising a wider association among all Caribbean

States, including those outside the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said in the second part of his supplementary question. The question of a wider organisation, particularly on the economic side, must be kept constantly in mind, because fragmentation in this area must be avoided if that is possible. The date of Jamaica's independence is to be discussed at the present conference. I know that there are many hurricanes in that area, sometimes natural and sometimes personal.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: While sharing the regret which the whole House will feel at the failure of this Federation, would not my right hon. Friend agree that we ought at some time to have a chance of discussing the wider aspects of the matter and paying our tribute to all those, the Governor-General and the Ministers and the Commissioner in this country, who have worked very hard and so well to try to make this scheme a success?
Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper in connection with the proposed legislation to outline the rather complicated arrangements which there will have to be for the common services and explaining what will be the rôle of the United Kingdom? May I remind him that we had an important rôle to play in the days before federation and that we shall have another important rôle in initiating the beginnings ultimately of a new Federation?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the occasion for a discussion, which I will welcome, will arise when the House debates this legislation. During the course of this month I hope to discuss with the other Governments concerned the details of the interim organisation and I will then consider the best method of making them public, possibly by a White Paper as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Grimond: While regretting this turn of events, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman his intentions about the further step of which he has spoken, that of a projected federation between Barbados and the Leeward and Windward Islands? Might it not be worth


considering sending out a high-level commission to discuss this and the related question of a wider federation; or, if that is not in the Government's mind, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how this study is to be prosecuted?

Mr. Maudling: This was a new idea which was put to me while I was there. We are now considering it in London. The Governments concerned are studying its economic and financial aspects and I hope in a short time to have their considered views on the extent to which such a Federation would be viable. When we have those views, we can consider the best procedure from then on.

Mr. Fisher: May I put two questions to my right hon. Friend? What does he think of the prospect of a Federation of the eight smaller islands, bearing in mind that, although they might not be really viable, that would be better than complete fragmentation? Secondly, while we were all glad to hear that he felt that the prospects of coming to an arrangement about shared services were fairly good, how does he intend to implement that arrangement? Does he intend to call a conference of West Indian Governments to discuss it, possibly after the Jamaican election, or when does he intend to take the initiative in this matter?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that fragmentation would be the worst thing, but I would not like to commit myself on the question of a federation of the eight until we have had a good deal more thought about it. I would have in mind handing over to an interim commission the assets, obligations and services of the present federation and calling a conference, possibly this summer or some other suitable time, when the interested Governments, including Jamaica and Trinidad, could discuss permanent arrangements for these services.

Mr. Chapman: First, on the possibility of federation of the eight islands, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to reach an early decision about this, say, by the spring of this year? Is the Minister not aware that following all the trouble there has been in the West Indies there is now a terrific driving spirit among the eight for federation? It is important

to capture this spirit before it begins to subside. Is he further aware that many of them are willing to give up some of the top-heavy Ministerial system for a tighter Federation, and that this, too, needs to be caught while the spirit is there if that federation is to be made a success? Will he, therefore, give us an assurance that he will try to reach a very early decision about the possibility of this Federation?
Secondly, can he confirm what he appeared to make quite clear in his statement, namely, that there is to be independence for Trinidad, and that there is to be early legislation to provide it?

Mr. Maudling: I agree about the desirability of moving ahead quickly on this, but, having seen one Federation in the West Indies collapse in the way in which we are seeing now, I would be unhappy about setting up another until I was confident that it would last. I agree, however, that no time must be wasted.
It is only recently that we have had a formal communication from the Trinidad Government. I shall be ready to discuss procedure with the Trinidad Government at a mutually convenient time.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will not the Minister agree that in the eight islands which are now outside the previous Federation, or shortly to be outside it, there is a very strong desire not to be thrust back into the position of Crown Colonies? Before any change takes place, that is to say, in which there is a reversion to the pre-federation situation, will he consider trying to work out with them a satisfactory solution which will give them, in turn, independence on the basis either of federation, or possibly even union among themselves?

Mr. Maudling: I certainly want to make the quickest possible progress with this, but, Jamaica and Trinidad both being determined to leave the Federation, I think that the only practical thing to do is to dissolve the present Federation and work from then on. I do not want to reach conclusions about Barbados and the other islands until the people have had a chance to think the matter out, because immediate reactions


to a decision as between one island and another can be not quite the same as permanent reactions. A little time for the people to think these things over dispassionately is rather important at this stage.

Mr. Gaitskell: I agree that we need a little time, but would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is undesirable that there should be any reversion to the previous position, as it were, before he begins to discuss with these islands their own future? Would not it be better to preserve in some form or other the existing Federation until he has attempted at least to try to work out a more satisfactory future for the eight islands?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that preserving the Federation will serve a useful purpose in the light of what I learned in the West Indies, but I think that it would be desirable, if we could, to reach a fairly clear conclusion on the question of the eight at the time when the legislation to which I referred was passing through the House. I cannot guarantee that, but it would be desirable to do so if we could.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Green Belt and Agricultural Land

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 21st February, I shall call attention to the Green Belt policy and the use of agricultural land for industrial and other purposes, and move a Resolution.

Commercial Education (Future Development)

Mr. Cleaver: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 21st February, I shall call attention to the further development of commercial education, and move a Resolution.

River Thames (Pollution)

Mr. D. Smith: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 21st February, I shall call attention to the pollution of the River Thames, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

[1ST ALLOTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress. 12th December].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(APPLICATION OF PART I.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: The more I consider this Bill, and particularly this Clause, which is the operative part of the for the rest of it is merely the machinery by which the operation can be carried out, the more disappointed, the more distressed, and the more bitter I become about it.
I have been in public life for well over half a century. This is the most retrograde Bill that has even been introduced during my time in this House. It is against the whole trend of modern thought and action. Since the end of the war it has been the desire of us all to help those in distress. For this purpose the Food and Agriculture Organisation was set up under the United Nations, and those in distress received the wonderful help of Marshall Aid.
People in the West Indies are in distress, and instead of going to their assistance and helping them, it is proposed to otiose the door against them. This is against the whole trend of modern thought and action, and against the trend of previous legislation. How contrary this is to the act of our ancestors a hundred and twenty years ago, when this House, in its poverty after the Napoleonic wars, voted £20 million to set these people free, and yet here they are today still in a position where they cannot live on these islands. They desire to live there, but no help has been given them to enable that to be done, and now the door is to be barred against them coming here.
This is our special responsibility, because these people have always been associated with us. Their only language is English. If someone asks what nationality they are, they will always say that they are English. The United States is barred to them, and now we are to bar them, too.
What puzzles me is that when the Bill was brought forward, as it obviously was, as a panic Measure, did no one in the Cabinet ask what was to happen to these people? Did no one ask why they wanted to leave? Did no one inquire about whether there was enough work for them on the islands, and whether we could do something to take industry to them and help them to stay at home?
I understand that these people cannot go to the United States, and it is now proposed to stop them coming here. What is to happen to them? Did no one in the Cabinet consider the position of these people? That question ought to have occurred to members of the Cabinet, and particularly to the Prime Minister himself. Instead of seeing what could be done for them, this panic Measure has been introduced.
When I remember the services rendered by these people, especially during the war, it seems to me that the attitude of the Government is, "Save me from my friends". I do not remember hearing such a phrase from anybody in this House or elsewhere during the war when these people volunteered in their thousands to help us. What is to happen to them now?
I leave the matter in that way, except to refer to our attitude towards the Irish. It is right that I should say what I feel about this. Had the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) still been at the helm, and in control, that part of the Bill dealing with the Irish would never have been brought forward. I well remember the day when Mr. Attlee—as he then was—as Prime Minister, called the right hon. Member for Woodford and me to No. 10, Downing Street, and told us that the Irish were to turn themselves into a Republic, All three of us felt that nothing could be done, and that we would have to accept the decision. But what remains so poignantly in my mind is the emotion with which the right hon. Member for

Woodford then spoke. He said, "We cannot treat them differently from ourselves."
Here, in this Bill, his successors—who were with him at the time of which I have spoken—are now about to treat them differently. That is why I object so strongly to the Bill, and feel so bitter about its introduction.

Lord Balniel: Now that we are speaking on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we come, once again, to the principles lying behind the major part of the Bill. I want to make it clear that I accept the fact that some form of control of immigration is, perhaps unfortunately, now necessary. We are a densely populated country. We have only a limited geographical area, and do not have unlimited resources for the creation of new social capital in respect of housing, educational and medical facilities.
This is particularly a problem in that when immigrants come to this country they are not diffused throughout the length and breadth of the land. They do not form just 1 per cent. of the total population, but are channelled into one or two focal areas where they form 10 per cent. or even 20 per cent. of certain localities. In those localtities the amount of social capital, in the shape of houses, schools and medical facilities, is clearly inadequate to meet the needs either of the immigrants or of the local population.
It is probably quite accepted within the Commonwealth that Britain should impose some form of control on immigration. As long ago as at the 1918 Imperial Conference it was unanimously agreed among Commonwealth countries that some form of control over immigration was acceptable, and every Commonwealth country has some form of immigration control. Far from negatively accepting the need for immigration control, however, I positively, although reluctantly, feel that some form of control is in the interests not only of our own communities, but of the immigrants themselves, and that there should be some control of the rate, time, and level of immigration, so that immigrants can be absorbed without creating new social tensions and hatreds, and so, also, that we do not create in our midst an


unprivileged class, marked out by its colour, which is acceptable in times of economic prosperity but regarded as dispensable in times of economic difficulty.

Mr. Llywelyn Williams: Since the hon. Member presumes to speak in the name of the people most affected by the Bill, and insists that it is in their interest that they should not come to this country uncontrolled, will he tell the Committee how many representations he has received from the people concerned to that effect?

Lord Balniel: If the hon. Member will contain his impatience for a moment he will probably agree that our views are not so very far apart. It seems to me that the "open-door" policy, magnificent, proud and fine as it was in its day, is of little value to immigrants if we allow them unlimited immigration and cannot guarantee them a warm welcome or social and economic security. I suggest, regretfully, that in certain localities we cannot guarantee to an unlimited flow of immigrants social and economic security, or hospitality.
Although I agree that some form of control is probably necessary, I also agree that any control of immigration strikes at the very root of the British tradition and the Commonwealth; that no such control should be imposed unless the most careful consultation has taken place within the Commonwealth, and that even then we should move very carefully. Furthermore, as the Mother Country of a multi-racial Commonwealth we must be scrupulously careful—it behoves us to be so, in our interests—to ensure that there is not a scintilla or taint of colour prejudice in any action that we take.
I do not associate myself with some hon. Members who have taken part in these debates, or with comments outside the House, that in introducing this Measure my right hon. Friends are activated by any sense of colour prejudice. Their record of liberal administration in Africa, and their determination and courage in establishing multi-racial Governments within the Commonwealth, provide a total rebuttal of any such accusation. My regret is that whatever the motives of my right hon. Friends and however noble their

intentions, the Bill is wide open to the charge of racial discrimination.
My right hon. Friends say that the Clause is non-discriminatory in character. It brings within its scope both the black immigrants from Jamaica and the white immigrants from Southern Ireland. I agree that it is general in character, but what I cannot do is to take the next step which the Government ask us to take. Much as I should like to, I cannot follow the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General——

Mr. Donald Chapman: Who can?

Lord Balniel: —when, on 12th December, he said:
This is a general Bill giving general powers, and its character is not altered by the manner in which the powers are exercised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 253.]
I cannot accept that argument. It seems a constitutionally sound argument if it is argued in a vacuum and in isolation, and treated as a purely academic exercise. But we cannot treat it as that. In Committee, we have to consider how the Bill will be implemented in practice. We are told that in practice, solely for the sake of administrative convenience, the Bill will not be applied to the Southern Irish. For the sake of administrative convenience—and surely this is the least trustworthy guide that we can possibly take in great matters—we shall tear at the great principles and practices to which we should adhere if we possibly can. We are prepared to tear at principles to which we should adhere as ordinary human beings, and at practices to which we should adhere as members of the Conservative Party.
The first of these is the principle that all men should be treated alike, irrespective of colour, and that we should judge the quality of our legislation by its generality in character and operation. We should judge the practice of the matter in the light of the fact that, in this imperfect world, when we have to choose between different communities and between different men, we in the Conservative Party almost instinctively give preference to members of the Commonwealth.
4.0 p.m.
I should like, briefly, to look at the two questions arising in Clause 1—the question of colour and the question of the Commonwealth. There are two main groups of unskilled labour immigration into this country. One is the black unskilled labour—66,000 of them—corning from the West Indies. The second is the white unskilled labour—numbers unknown—coming from Southern Ireland. It seems to me that if there is to be a limitation on numbers the diminution in numbers insisted on should be borne fairly equally between those two main groups. This would seem the absolute minimum of justice as between different groups of men, and that minimum becomes of paramount importance when one group is black and the other white.
When we impose restrictions and controls on the black group and allow totally unrestricted immigration by the white group, how can we possibly preach racial tolerance, for instance, in the interests of economic well-being in Kenya? How can we possibly go to the mineworkers' union of Southern Rhodesia and tell the mineworkers to bring racial tolerance to their industry? How can we possibly have the temerity to preach to the Government of South Africa, with their vastly greater industrial racial problems, what their standards ought to be?
How can we even tell the West Indians that they should tear down the discriminations between their own islands? What I fear about this matter—whatever the motives of my right hon. Friends, and I accept at once that they are completely honourable—is that when we come to preach racial tolerance our enemies will dress us in the clothes of Tartufe, and we must be careful that those clothes do not fit us.
I wish to say a word about the Commonwealth argument, that we are giving preference to non-British subjects over the members of the Commonwealth. It appears to me that my right hon. Friends are saying slightly different things to different bodies of people. They are saying to hon. Members in this Committee, "We must keep the Southern Irish in the Bill because that keeps the Bill generally in character, although we are not proposing to use these reserve powers

because they are almost impossible to exercise. And, also, we must keep these reserve powers in the Bill in case there is a change in the economic climate of the country, or in case the principles of the Bill are undermined by Commonwealth immigration coming to Southern Irish ports and flowing from Southern Ireland into this country." At the same time, my right hon. Friends are turning to the Southern Irish Government and saying, "You can have totally unrestricted, unimpeded immigration into this country, provided you pass legislation controlling Commonwealth immigration into your own country."
I accept that that is a gross oversimplification, but I do not think that it is a distortion of what the Government have said. Perhaps I may again be permitted to quote, this time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Who said, referring to these reserve powers:
Our attitude will be guided entirely by the nature of the type of legislation introduced by the Government of the Irish Republic. Meanwhile we have the reserve power in our own Bill. I hope and believe that the nature of their legislation will be such that no such power will be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1961 Vol. 651, c. 332.]
I find this a slightly unhappy picture. We are asking non-British citizens to act as policemen against Commonwealth citizens, and, at the same time, we are saying to them, "If you do your job well, if you control Commonwealth immigration effectively, you will be allowed unrestricted, unimpeded, uninterrupted access to this country. But if you do not do your job well, we are proposing to impose these reserve powers on the Southern Irish."

Mr. Chapman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that later, I think on 12th December, the Attorney-General repeated this, I should think at least six times, and that many people, I am sure, felt that I was not being offensive deliberately when I said that I could not refrain from saying that this was so obviously blackmail on the Southern Irish Government? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to read that into it?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to choose his own words, and I will choose mine. I said I felt that this was rather an unhappy picture which we have presented.
My right hon. Friend, admittedly it was in a humorous aside, said that this is an Irish question. I do not agree. This is a Commonwealth question, about which deeply emotional feelings are held. I know that the cynics may scoff at these emotional feelings, but it is these feelings which, almost alone in the postwar years, have held the Commonwealth together. We are engaged in the task of trying to transform the old Imperial mission into a new Commonwealth, and I believe that the provisions in this Clause will make it harder for us in Africa, in Asia and in the West Indies.
At the same time as we are attempting to transform the old Imperial mission into a new Commonwealth, we are also abandoning the preferences which instinctively should be given to the Commonwealth by a Conservative Government. Not only that, but we are also handing the preferences to non-British citizens.
I agree with the article in The Times which complained about this disparity of treatment and maintained that the effect, the damage, emotional, economic and political, which it is likely to do to the already fragile fabric of the Commonwealth can hardly be exaggerated.
I find the Bill impossible to support at any stage. However, I want to conclude on a constructive note rather than with negative criticism. At this stage, I am sure my right hon. Friends will appreciate that it is extraordinarily difficult for back bench Members to put forward constructive ideas. It is certainly extremely difficult for us to put forward original ideas. All I can do is repeat the plea reiterated time and again from these back benches, that my right hon. Friends should look once again at the question of the Ulster-Eire border. We are told that this question was examined and rejected during the war, but then the situation was utterly different.
While the Commonwealth and Ulster were fighting at our shoulder, the Government of Southern Ireland were neutral. At that time the passage over the border of one spy would have been very dangerous to the integrity of this country. At that time it was impossible. But are we really saying that now it is impossible to impose an immigration control over what I imagine must be the

shortest land border in the entirety of Europe? It is 180 miles long. Every European and continental country imposes immigration control over far longer distances.
The United States-Mexico border is about 1,500 miles long. The Canadian-American border is about 5.000 miles long. I accept that it is possible that one or two, perhaps 100 or 500 people, might slip across in the dead of night. But is it really so terrible, is it really so damaging to the economic well-being of this country?
It is true, and I accept the arguments of my right hon. Friends, that this would be administratively rather inconvenient. It might be administratively slightly expensive, but these arguments of administrative convenience weigh very lightly against the fact that we are being asked to compromise on principles which we hold most dear.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Committee is in a dilemma. The dilemma arises from the rather cowardly, tyrannical and quite unnecessary Guillotine on an important constitutional Measure. The dilemma is that while this is the central part, the operative part, of this whole Bill and, therefore, justifies a full-length examination on a Second Reading scale, the Committee could only do that by further limiting its opportunities as the Committee stage progresses by introducing some kind of constructive Amendments.
We have to strike the best balance we can. I shall be quite short in my speech, but I do not think that without further examination we could agree to pass Clause 1. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) made a very interesting speech. He made his devastating attack on the Government and their Bill with the utmost tact and discretion—so much tact and so much discretion that for a time I was wondering on which side he would ultimately come down. I do not go along with him in the last part of his speech. I do not believe that if he had every inch of his way in regard to the Ulster border this Bill would be one scrap better or more acceptable than it is. I do not believe that he thinks so either, but in his general attack on the Clause he has made almost the most devastating critical analysis that has been made so far.
If, as I hope, this Clause is to be challenged in the Division Lobby, we shall all welcome the noble Lord in voting with us in an effort to see that this Clause, which he hates so much, is not carried. It is of very little constructive value to take up the limited time of the Committee under a Guillotine in order to express criticisms and opposition to a Clause and then to withhold constructive support for the only way of dealing with the Clause in pursuance of the criticism of it that has been made. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not hesitate, but will come with us into the Lobby.
I wish to make my criticism of the Clause, and this is the first contribution I have made to these debates. I am left at the end of these discussions—all of them, on Second Reading, Committee stage and everything—wondering why the Government have introduced the Bill.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Vote catching.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I do not even know whose votes they want to catch. They have expressly disclaimed any kind of colour bar. This is not to be a discriminatory Bill and is nothing to do with the colour bar. They have disclaimed any question of urgency. The figures, which they rather reluctantly and belatedly produced in response to pressure from this side of the Committee, show that so far from there being any emergency of any kind there has been more migration out of this country than into this country over all the relevant periods. So it is not an emergency about population. It is not a question of colour. It is not a question, they have disclaimed it expressly, of bad behaviour. It is not, they have disclaimed it expressly, a question of disease.
One hon. Member who suggested that it was un-Christian to subject immigrants to the kind of housing conditions that they would meet in Birmingham was effectively answered by an interjection from this side of the Committee by an hon. Friend of mine who wanted to know if that hon. Member thought it was Christian to subject the present population of Birmingham to those conditions. All these imagined reasons for the Bill have been expressly disclaimed by the

Government one after the other. What are we left with? That it is not a question of controlling immigration. The noble Lord said that he conceded the necessity to control immigration. Unless and until we enter the Common Market we control immigration now very effectively indeed. What we are concerned with is not immigration but migration, the movement of populations, the free movement of British citizens. For most of this century the economics of this country have been bedevilled by distressed and special areas. In Lancashire, in Northumberland, in North Wales, in South Wales and various other parts of the country there has been a drift of population towards London, towards the South, towards the Midlands. That has gone on for almost fifty years——

Mr. C. Davies: For one hundred and fifty years.

Mr. Silverman: Much more than fifty years, but it has been accentuated in this century.
When I first came into this House we had regular and frequent debates about control of industry, depopulation and Highlands devastation, but did the Government do anything about it? Did they think it right to control industry, which put a fetter or limitation on migration or devastation of areas in our country? Not at all. Their reason for not doing it was that we cannot put any kind of limitation on a citizen's right to move about freely in his own country.
This which we refuse to do within our own borders, controlling our own people, the Government propose to apply where there is no urgency or pressure from outside for British citizens for reasons which remain a complete mystery and are completely incomprehensible after all the debates we have had about them. In the discussions which have been held in the House and in the country over a matter which it would not be in order to discuss now—the Common Market—both sides, those in favour and those against, assert that they are vitally concerned with the preservation, the advancement, the progress of the Commonwealth. All of them do it. All of them make that assertion.
It is true that in every other part of the Commonwealth each of the constituent countries or Powers has the right


to exercise, and does exercise, migration control in its own area. But, expressly and deliberately, when those powers were granted in 1948 Parliament refused to take them for ourselves. We said, "This is the heart of the family, here in the United Kingdom. This is the heart of the Commonwealth. This is home for everyone. Therefore, we renounce the right which we are granting to other component parts of the Commonwealth to prevent people moving freely in and out as citizens of a great Commonwealth, because we are the heart, because we are the home, because everybody is entitled to be home here".
I refuse, and I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will refuse, to encourage the Government in this unpatriotic, inhuman procedure, because when all comes to all the position is this. The Government may disclaim colour bar and colour prejudice from now till doomsday, but nobody will believe them. In the absence of any other comprehensible reason, nobody will believe them and every one of us here in the Committee today and outside, if he answered the question honestly, could give only one answer to the question, "If all immigrants from the Commonwealth were white, would this Bill ever have been heard of?" The answer is an emphatic, "No."

Sir Thomas Moore: I have not spoken on the Bill before, because I always dislike opposing such an excellent Government as we have today and also such a humane and sympathetic Home Secretary, but I dislike the Clause intensely, just as I dislike the Bill intensely. Last November, The Times, in a leading article, described the Bill as a bad Bill. I entirely agreed with the newspaper. I endeavoured to confirm my agreement by writing a shattering letter to The Times, which it refused to publish because those responsible believed that they had expressed themselves better than I had.
The reason why I dislike the Clause and the Bill is very simple. I cannot make any consistency out of it. We are told often—indeed, day after day—that there are about 400,000 jobs in this country waiting for applicants to fill them. Yet we propose in the Clause and

in the Bill to exclude the people to fill them. We are told, again, that we need about 400,000 houses a year. Yet we propose under the Bill to exclude those sturdy Irish labourers that every building contractor would give his soul to get. Therefore, the Bill does not make sense.
If the Government are going to say that they include the Irish in the Bill simply because they do not want it to be a colour-bar Bill, they are doing something which they know they cannot carry out, because without the Irish labourer our functions in this country could not be fulfilled. What about the hospitals? Where are the nurses to be found to fill the places in our hospitals—those Irish nurses who are so welcome, so cheerful and so tactful? What are they going to do on the Underground without their polite West Indians? What are they going to do in the factories without their Pakistanis and East Indians? Some industries with which I am concerned have had to go out and recruit Italians because we cannot get enough Irish labourers into this country to fill the jobs for which they are required.
We might well consider, also, the domestic situation in some of our homes. Many of us would like to see our wives relieved of the cooking for a time, of cleaning the kitchen range, and of the various other jobs which fall to the lot of every wife today. How delighted we are when a couple of nice Irish maids come along and relieve us of some of this burden.
If we enter the Common Market, this Bill will mean that our former enemies will be free to come here as they like and that neither our trade unions nor our Government can forbid them. Yet our friends who have fought with us and died with us and for us on many occasions will be excluded. The whole thing reeks of inconsistency and, like my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), I cannot support it. Keep out the criminals, the parasites and the infectiously diseased, certainly. We do not want them, from wherever they come, but do let us preserve this country as a welcome sanctuary for all those who have for generations regarded it as home.

Mr. Chapman: The Committee must be sorry that we have not had the robust contribution of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) earlier in the proceedings on the Bill, because it would have enlivened them. I have to tell him that he has got the story of the Irish under the Bill quite wrong. They are being excluded from the operation of the Bill by the decision of the Home Secretary. They are, in fact, to be allowed in free.

Sir T. Moore: They are in the Bill.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman has missed all our previous proceedings, in which the Home Secretary said that he could not apply that part of the Bill to the Irish. I hope that it does not change the hatred the hon. Gentleman has for the Bill when he finds that the Irish still are to come in free. We on this side welcome his support.
I had not intended to intervene, because we have a large number of very important Amendments to Clause 2. It is on that Clause that we have the best possibility of improving the Bill and making it less harmful to the Commonwealth. We all hope that we can get through Clause 1 very quickly, have a vote on it, and proceed to Clause 2.
I am tempted to intervene because of what the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said. I say this to him in all friendliness and sincerity. I hope that he will not take it amiss. I spent the whole of my time during the Recess travelling in the West Indies to assess the effect of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord and other hon. Members opposite will take this as a compliment. There has been no greater help, other than the attitude of the Opposition, towards the cause of the Commonwealth in the West Indies in the last few weeks than the strong feelings expressed by a certain number of hon. Members opposite. I have been proud to pay some tribute to them in the West Indies and say that this has shown that there is a deep conscience in these matters, not just on the Labour side of the House of Commons, but on the Conservative side, also.
The hatred, anxiety and deep concern that sprang up in the West Indies over the Bill have been very strongly modified by the strong stand taken not only

on this side of the Committee, but by very sincere hon. Members on the Conservative back benches. I disregard the Government in this. I treat them with utter contempt, because I do not think that they ever tried to assess the terrible effects of the Bill. However, a few of us on both sides of the Committee have shown to areas like the West Indies that this deep conscience of the Mother Country runs strong in some of us.
This has had an enormous effect in the West Indies. I "chanced my arm" to say that the effect of the opposition there plus the opposition on both sides of the House of Commons in this country, will be that the Bill will be bound to be interpreted benignly by the Government. I have done my best in those areas by saying, "Do not worry too much. We still hope that tens of thousands of you will get in". It is the spirit of the House of Commons which has done more good out there in these trying days than anything else which could have happened after this dreadful Bill was introduced. I want very sincerely to say to the hon. Member for Hertford and his hon. Friends who have been with us on the Bill that they have done a great deal of good to the Commonwealth in the last few weeks.
As the Home Secretary is now bound to make at least some reply to a very short discussion, I wonder whether he can give us the next stage of the story about the Irish. In the original Bill they were in. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he could not apply it to the Irish; they were out. Later in the debate the Minister of Labour said that they were in. In Committee, the Home Secretary said that they were out again. We have had this game of ins-and-outs, which has done no good for the idea of British legislation during these last few weeks. It has been almost a charade, ending in an attempt by the Attorney-General to put pressure on the Irish Government to introduce legislation, which would, he said, render it unnecessary for us to do anything to restrict the Irish.
Can we know whether this pressure, which has been frankly put by the British Government on the Irish Government, has produced results? Is the Home Secretary now able to say whether the Irish Government will introduce


legislation to restrict Commonwealth citizens landing at any of the Irish ports? Does this mean that the Government have finally made a firm decision not to apply the Bill to the Irish? Can we have the next instalment of this very unhappy, and, I would say, legislatively sordid story?
4.30 p.m.
Cannot the Home Secretary take this opportunity—I say this with deep sincerity and no one, I think, doubts my own sincerity about the Bill—to give us information which would do a great deal of good for the Commonwealth? Can he tell us now, and tell the Commonwealth now, the sort of figure that he has in mind for entry in the coming year? This is the crucial issue now.
We have killed the spirit of the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides have managed to do that in recent weeks. The Bill is half dead, as I said in the West Indies. All that we want to know now is: what are the figures? Can the Home Secretary tell us whether he has in mind allowing in 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 West Indians, plus other figures for other parts of the Commonwealth, and can he say whether the figures for 1959–60 will be taken as reasonable by the Government, that is, about 30,000 to 80,000 Commonwealth immigrants coming in every year?
Is this what the Government hope to see happen in future years as opposed to the high figures, or what they may think were the high figures, in 1961? If he can say something like that, he will have undone some of the harm which this dreadful Bill did when it was first introduced.

Mr. Norman Pannell: Much of the debate on this Clause has revolved round the question of Irish immigration and the inability, as expressed by the Government, to apply the Bill to Irish immigrants. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and other hon. Members in expressing my grave disquiet on this. I was much impressed by the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in the earlier stages of the Bill.
I think that if the will and the determination were there the Government could apply the Bill to the Southern Irish. Having said that, I must add that I do not think that the exclusion of the citizens of Republic of Ireland from the Bill vitiates its intention or renders it a colour bar Measure. I cannot help feeling that hon. Members who have stressed this point seem to have a complex about the colour bar, and it can do no service to the Commonwealth to import into the debate arguments which should never be there.
I should like to put the Irish question in perspective. Many figures have been mentioned during the debate, but I would refer to those given by the Economic Intelligence Digest, which has made a profound study of this immigration question. It gives a figure of about 25,000 a year net immigrants from the Republic of Ireland. I remember that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfields (Mr. Chapman) said, in an earlier stage of the debate, that the figure was over 70,000. He referred to their being practically half the total immigrants into this country.
If, however, we take into account the immigration from those Commonwealth countries of which the Home Office has given me details we have a total 136,000 in 1961. That did not include the Irish but, if we add them, and the Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, who account for another 25,000, we find that the Irish accounted for roughly only one in six of all immigrants from Ireland and the Commonwealth——

Mr. R. H. Turton: My hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a figure of 50,000 or 60,000 a year.

Mr. Pannell: I understand that those figures were from the Ministry of Labour and represented those who registered here for employment. They do not take account of those who went back. We must take account of the loss of population in Ireland, which is put by the Republic of Ireland at something less than 30,000 a year. If that figure is correct, I do not see how more immigrants than that can enter this country.
There is another point which has not been mentioned, or, if it has, it is worth


repeating. The Republic of Ireland is the only country that offers the citizens of the United Kingdom reciprocal advantages in relation to immigration. We can go there without let or hindrance in exactly the same way as they can come here.
One of the aspects of the Bill that distresses me is that we are applying the same regulations to Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders. One might have thought that immigrants from those countries, many of whom are descendants of people born here, had special rights and privileges, and might be admitted on that account. Whether or not we think that, it is not being done.
I accept, although it distresses me, that if we are to be impartial in the matter, we must apply the Bill's regulations equally to Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as to West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis. I accept that, but surely it renders the Bill impartial. Hon. Members opposite must agree that if, without distinction, we apply the provisions of the Bill to those who are tied to us by blood, the Bill has no colour bias.
I would go further and say that if all the immigrants into this country were white, this Bill would still be necessary. It has been said, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) repeated it, that emigration is greater than immigration. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the advantage of seeing the Ministry of Health's Annual Report for 1960——

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose——

Mr. Pannell: When I have concluded this argument I shall be only too pleased to give way to the hon. Member, but perhaps he will allow me to finish it before he intervenes.
The Report, after giving the estimated increase in the population of the United Kingdom as 369,000 from mid-1959 to mid-1960, states:
The increase of population from mid-1959 to mid-1960 consisted largely of a natural increase"—
that is, an excess of births over deaths—
of 251,000, partly of an inward balance of migration of 108,000 and a small residue, 10,000, which is caused by other movements of the population.

It goes on:
The inward balance of migration was also the largest for many years. Since 1954–55 the balance which was previously outward has been increasingly inward. In the calendar year 1960 the inward balance is estimated to have exceeded the natural increase.

Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot deal with the figures to which the hon. Gentleman calls my attention. I am not an expert on migration, and I am not a statistician. I accepted the figures offered by the Home Office. There is the Home Secretary—they are his figures, and if the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave me were right, my statement was right. I accepted those figures. Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that I should not have done so?

Mr. Pannell: I was giving figures from an official Report which, I believe, was published after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement.
It has been suggested in this House, in reply to Questions, that the net influx was 108,000 in 1960. Hence, almost certainly, the figure was higher in 1961, because the number of immigrants from the Commonwealth countries to which reference has been made was 134,000 in 1961 as compared with 60,000 in 1960——

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: It may he that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can assist us on this. If confusion arises, is it possible for him to say whether the figures my hon. Friend has just given include aliens as well as the immigrants from the overseas Commonwealth?

Mr. Pannell: There is no distinction, but immigration applies more to the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland than to aliens. I have not the breakdown, but we know it to be indisputable that if the increase in population due to immigration, apart from the natural increase, was 108,000 in the year in question, it must have been more in 1961, since 134,000 net came in from the tropical Commonwealth countries——

Mr. S. Silverman: When the hon. Gentleman talks of a figure of 108,000 as being, as it were, an adverse balance of immigration, is he talking of immigration as a whole or of immigration from the Commonwealth?

Mr. Pannell: I am answering the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Perhaps he will listen to me; I have listened carefully to him. He said, without distinction of Commonwealth or alien immigration, that the figures showed that emigration was greater than immigration——

Mr. S. Silverman: Then perhaps I may make explicit what I mistakenly thought to be implicit. Since the Bill does not alter the Government's power to control immigration, and as it is a Bill about Commonwealth immigration only, I was speaking—as, I think, the Home Secretary was—of Commonwealth immigration, which is the only relevant figure.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman really loses sight of the main purpose of this Measure. It applies restriction to Commonwealth immigration, but restriction no less onerous than that already applying to the immigration of aliens. His point is, therefore, quite irrelevant.
Since 1955, instead of a net emigration, this country has had a net immigration, and it is increasing in numbers. The country was finding it difficult enough, with a net balance of emigration, to get rid of the slums, provide better housing, and so on. The problem became even more difficult when the two figures reached equality. How much more difficult will the task be if we have a net immigration figure of anything up to 200,000 a year?
If we assume 3½ people for one dwelling we would, on a net immigration figure like that, have to find nearly 70,000 extra houses a year. We must remember, however, that the immigrants are usually of marriageable age, and it would not be an exaggeration to assume that if that net immigration figure continued at 200,000 a year we would have to find an extra 100,000 houses annually to enable them to dwell decently.
Another point that I am sure has not escaped notice is the recent increase in the unemployment figures. They are higher than they have been for a long time and, in the last month on record, they rose by 70,000——

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Pannell: I do not say who is responsible for the situation; I merely say that it exists, and we have to face the facts.
That situation must be seriously aggravated if there is an influx of unskilled workers seeking jobs, That is the reason for the Bill, it has every justification, and I should have thought that the deteriorating labour situation would have impressed even the most bigoted hon. Member opposite of its necessity.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: As has been pointed out, we are in a real difficulty in working under the Guillotine, because Clause 1 has already been discussed in Committee for nearly two whole days as well as for part of today. On Clause 2, which we shall come to in a moment, there are a large number of Amendments—20 of which have been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means—some put down in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, others put down by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and some put down by right hon. and hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friends below the Gangway.
It is, therefore, in the interests of the whole Committee that we should as soon as possible approach in a constructive way the consideration of those Amendments, some of which, at any rate, we hope the Government will accept, because they are all intended to improve a Bill that has been condemned in every part of the House of Commons as being a bad Bill, a distasteful Bill, and an unnecessary Bill. That being so, I propose to speak very briefly at this stage.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have earlier indicated haw this Bill and, in particular, this Clause, which is the forefront of the Bill and contains its principle, offends the most deeply felt principles of those on this side of the Committee as well as—as we have heard this afternoon—those of a number of hon. Members opposite. In fact, it is significant that of the three hon. Members whom we have heard from the benches opposite, two—the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)—have condemned the Bill outright, while the hon. Member for


Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has described it as being thoroughly distasteful.
We thought from the beginning that this was a distasteful, bad and unnecessary Bill—an unjustifiable Bill, and one that we regard as humiliating to us as a nation because it betrays one of our most cherished traditions, the tradition of admitting citizens of the British Commonwealth to this country as of right, regardless of colour, creed or numbers.
If numbers are the justification for the Bill, perhaps the Home Secretary will clear up some of the mystery. We have been confused by all kinds of figures. The Home Secretary gave us some, and the Minister of Labour gave us a totally different set of figures about migration, immigration and emigration. If it is the net number of immigrants in recent years that is worrying the Government, what do they regard as an optimum figure? What number will they admit over and above those who are to be allowed by the Bill to come into the country as of right; those with jobs, students, those who can support themselves, and so on? How many does the Home Secretary expect will be excluded by the operation of this Measure?
If the other justification for the Bill is, as has been suggested, the housing shortage, what proposals have the Government for solving this problem? That seems to be the only possible excuse for this attempt to control immigration into this country. I admit that there is a housing problem in parts of London and in many of our big cities, but that is the fault of the Government. It represents the colossal failure of the Government to deal with the problem over the years. It is the subject on which my hon. Friends have been attacking the Government year in and year out during the ten years that the Conservatives have been in office.
One evil does not justify another. One cannot justify something which is bad by saying—as the Government say—that there is a housing problem. "We have failed to solve it and, therefore, we must try to solve it by controlling immigration," they are arguing. If more houses were built the problem would not exist. Whatever the position with regard to the Irish, I hope that today the Home

Secretary will say candidly and definitely just which answer he intends to use now. We were told, first, that the Irish were covered by the Bill and, therefore, that the Bill did not discriminate against coloured people. Then it was admitted that the Irish could not be included in the Bill. Then we were told that it was necessary to retain the powers in the Bill as reserve powers to exclude the Irish—even, presumably, though they could not be used.
Which argument is to be used today? Whatever the position is regarding the Irish, and whatever motives the Government might have, the Bill is regarded as being based on a colour bar. It is regarded throughout the Commonwealth as introducing the principle of racial discrimination. There is no doubt, whatever the Home Secretary may say, that it will be so interpreted throughout the Commonwealth—and indeed, the world—as being such and that it will be administered in that way.
With the best of good will on the part of immigration officers it must obviously be easier to exclude coloured people from the coloured parts of the Commonwealth than people from Ireland, Canada, Australia, and so on. It is no use the Attorney-General arguing—in his legalistic fashion—that formally there is no colour discrimination in the Bill. Everyone knows that it is based on racial discrimination and that it will lead to racial discrimination. It will, therefore, undermine the principles on which our multi-racial Commonwealth has been built and do enormous harm to the Commonwealth.
As I have said, the Bill betrays some of our deepest principles. We oppose the principle of Clause I. We shall vote against it and we are anxious, as soon as possible, to amend some of the objectionable provisions of Clause 2.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that there are many important ways in which we can improve Clause 2, not least through the Government Amendments which appear on the Notice Paper. I hope that it will be seen that those Amendments were put down as a result of discussion we had on Clause 1 and that they are


useful Amendments so far as the method of operating the Bill is concerned. I hope, therefore, that we may quickly bring this preliminary discussion to an end in the interests of the whole of the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) used some rather extreme language which I must correct, although I intend to speak for only a short time. He used three expressions: that by the Bill we should close the door against them, that our friends in the West Indies would know that the door was barred to them and that the Bill would stop them coming here. All of those expressions are grave exaggerations. There is no question of stopping them coming here. We want them to come here.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who referred to the work of West Indian girls in our hospitals and the need for West Indians, Pakistanis and others in our transport system. I very much hope that we shall continue to see them. When we come to discuss Clause 2 my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be able to explain the manner in which vouchers will be issued to those who have jobs, those we need in this country with skill and others who will be let in over and above them. As I say, some of the language which has been used is quite exaggerated and gives a totally wrong impression of the Bill. I say that that, and that alone, I hope, will have done a service to the passage of this Bill.

Mr. C. Davies: Assuming that a certain number will be allowed to come here because jobs can be found for them, what about the small islands that are involved? The people who live on them cannot emigrate to the United States beyond the figure that will be allowed. What is to happen to the others who cannot emigrate? Will the Government go to their assistance or allow them to starve?

Mr. Butler: I was about to refer to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to British investment and help to the West Indian Islands, both in the past and now. I would remind him that for the West Indies alone about £50 million has been

granted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and about £13 million by the Colonial Development Coroporation. The Government believe that out of our economy, which is already heavily strained the more we can make available for these islands for the purposes of development and to help save them from their real difficulties, the better. These difficulties were referred to by the Prime Minister of Jamaica in a Committee upstairs last night. They are difficulties with which we deeply sympathise, and we are doing our best to help.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who has been touring the West Indies, and has taken a great interest in the Bill, hoped that it would be operated benignly. I can assure hon. Members that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to operate the Bill benignly and I hope that it will be apparent from its operation—by the time that it has to be renewed—that what we have done is to operate it benignly.
I have also been asked to give the exact figures of the numbers who will be let in. That has already been denied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. It is impossible to give the exact figures, for the whole question of the voucher system depends on future developments and, if I may use an expression which was used by an earlier speaker, we want to guarantee to all immigrants, wherever they come from, social and economic security. That will be our guiding light. If we can guarantee them that I have no doubt that substantial numbers of them will be able to come here, relieve unemployment difficulties in their own countries and help us with our own economic and social difficulties.
I hope that my remarks at this stage will do something good to illustrate the manner in which the Bill will be operated. There have been references to statistics and while I do not want to speak for too long I must give one or two statistics in answer to the Hon. Member for Islington, East. I have with me the last, the seventh, report of the Oversea Migration Board. These are based on the most informed estimates that can be made of the differences


between the total population of the United Kingdom at the beginning and end of the calendar year, in so far as it is due to movement in and out of the country and not to any excess of births over deaths.
The Minister of Labour gave some of these figures on Second Reading. He said that, according to his estimate, in 1957 the net outward balance was 72,000. In 1958, that had changed to a net inward balance of 45,000 and, by 1960, it had increased to 82,000. I can now tell the Committee that indications are—the information we have received—that the figure for 1961 is likely to exceed 160,000—and that is double the previous figure. This is an important figure and gives an extra reason why—taking those figures alone—the Government have been justified in considering, to use the words of my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) "some form of control over immigration."

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Can the right hon. Gentleman break those figures down and say what proportion of the 160,000 came in since the Bill was introduced and what proportion before?

Mr. Butler: No. I cannot give exact figures. I was ready for that question, but I regret that I cannot give the answer to it.

Mrs. Castle: Is there not a footnote in the Report of the Oversea Migration Board making clear that these figures include immigrants from all countries including Ireland and overseas visitors? Therefore, the figures may be temporarily swollen by factors which have nothing to do with the Bill. They may, for instance, be due overwhelmingly to Irish immigrants.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Lady is quite right in saying that. I was going on to give further information on the nature of the statistics.
5.0 p.m.
We in the Home Office have for some years been doing our best to record the inward and outward movement of passengers to and from certain Commonwealth countries, those in Asia, the Mediterranean, East and West Africa and the West Indies. These are the figures of total movements of all kinds including short-term visitors, but, since

the short-term movements in both directions must roughly cancel one another out, the net balance gives a very fair idea of the extent of immigration from these countries. The figures have been given before. The net inward balance, which had fallen to 22,000 in 1959, rose to 58,000 in 1960 and to 136,000 in the year just ended. These figures, I think, are a further justification for the Government having decided to take action in this matter.
There have been several questions about Ireland. The Hon. Member for Northfield spoke about what he described as the latest position. In the first place, I deny that there has been any doubt about the latest position, nor will I attribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a statement that at one moment the Irish were in the Bill and at another moment they were out. The position has been clear from the start.
There is a power in the Bill to include the Irish. We still have that reserve power in the Bill, but for reasons which I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have given, we have found it too difficult to include the Irish in the Bill, not only for administrative reasons, but also for reasons of our relations with the Government of Northern Ireland. We have come to that conclusion, and there has been absolutely no alteration in our policy.

Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that the powers that the Home Secretary is retaining in the Bill with regard to the Irish are quite useless?

Mr. Butler: No. I am coming on to speak about that matter.
I think that it is a good thing to keep the reserve power in the Bill. I did not say that it was useless. I said that it was very difficult to operate. I think it wise to keep the reserve power as it is in the Bill, all the more so since the Bill by an Amendment to Clause 5 which the Government have put down is to be susceptible of renewal at the end of 1963. The Government hope by that time to have rather fuller information about the nature of migration to and from the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not quite clear to what powers the right hon. Gentleman is referring when he describes them as


reserve powers. Under what machinery in the Bill can he discriminate between immigrants who are otherwise subject to the provisions of the Bill? Has the Petition of Right been suspended?

Mr. Butler: No. There is a power in the Bill to apply the Bill to the Republic of Ireland. We have decided not to use that power. It remains in the Bill for use if necessary at any time. That is the exact statutory position in relation to the Republic of Ireland.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to use it?

Mr. Butler: I think that in the in-interests of the Committee, working under a Guillotine, I ought not to give way any more. I have made perfectly clear that there is this power which can be used in reserve.
I was coming on to say that we hope, before the Bill comes up for renewal—that will be, under the Amendment to Clause 5, to which I have referred and which will be moved by me on behalf of the Government—to have obtained fuller information than exists at present about the scale and make-up of immigration from the Republic of Ireland. We are taking steps to obtain this information in a variety of ways.
First, we intend to carry out an analysis of National Insurance records which will give us accurate information not only about how many people from the Republic come here for employment, but about how many remain in employment at the end of one or two years and can thus be regarded as having settled in the United Kingdom. Also, we shall obtain more information about the number of workers from the Republic of Ireland registered as unemployed and the number in receipt of National Assistance. These figures would come from official records.
We now have it in mind to supplement that information by obtaining much more complete and accurate information than is at present available about the total number of people travelling between the Republic of Ireland and this country and about their reasons for making the journey. We would do this by employing what is technically termed

a sampling procedure, by means of interviews. This procedure would be operated on the steamers and aircraft coming from the Republic and from Northern Ireland. It would be done administratively and would be an extension of an arrangement already in operation for obtaining statistical information about travel between this country and abroad.

Mr. Denis Howell: It all sounds very Irish.

Mr. Butler: Until we see how this works, we will take no further decision about whether we use the powers or not, about whether we use the landing card procedure referred to in the Bill, or whether we consider doing anything at the border. I simply say at present that we reserve the right to do so if we should find it necessary.
We hope, in these various ways, to obtain fuller information than we have had before about the movement of Irish labour, and we hope in that way to be able to meet the Committee, or the House as it may be, when the time comes for the Bill to be renewed.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the sampling procedure means that every traveller will have to give information, or will just a selection be taken?

Mr. Butler: Sampling procedures are already used on sea routes and they have proved very successful. It is done by the Social Survey and consists in taking a certain proportion of those travelling for interview with a view to obtaining a sample, and that is why it is called a sampling procedure. I think that it is a most efficient and sensible way of trying to obtain fuller information before the Bill comes up for renewal.
I have answered some of the points about the figures, about the statistics, about the method of administering the Bill and, indeed, many of the points which have been raised. I hope that the Committee will be ready to let Clause 1 pass. The Clause has been considered for at least two days in Committee. It has great importance, but I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East that Clause 2 is the one which controls the


operation of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that we may be able to come to a decision on this matter.
The Government approached the introduction of the Bill with due care and responsibility. I have never underestimated how deeply feelings are moved by the Bill in Committee and in the House. I have felt those feelings myself, and I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is right partly because of the figures of the trends which I have given and also in agreement with my noble

Friend the Member for Hertford, that some degree of control is necessary. There have been difficulties in perfecting this form of control. The Committee can make the control better by examining the Bill in more detail. We shall be very ready to examine it in that spirit, and I hope that it will be in that spirit that the Clause will now be passed.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 262, Noes 186.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[5.9 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Aitken, W. T.
Emery, Peter
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kershaw, Anthony


Barber, Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, Peter


Barter, John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kitson, Timothy


Batsford, Brian
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lambton, Viscount


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Leavey, J. A.


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Leburn, Gilmour


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Freeth, Denzil
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Biffen, John
Gammans, Lady
Litchfield, Capt. John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward
Longbottom, Charles


Bingham, R. M.
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Bishop, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John
Loveys, Walter H.


Black, Sir Cyril
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bossom, Clive
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bourne-Arton, A.
Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin


Box, Donald
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Gough, Frederick
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Braine, Bernard
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Sir John


Brooman-White, R.
Gurden, Harold
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Bryan, Paul
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Marshall, Douglas


Buck, Antony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil


Bullard, Denys
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mawby, Ray


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mills, Stratton


Channon, H. P. G.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Morgan, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nabarro, Gerald


Cole, Norman
Hirst Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Collard, Richard
Hobson, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Cooke, Robert
Hocking, Philip N.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Holland, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Hollingworth, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Costain, A. P.
Hopkins, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Coulson, Michael
Hornby, R. P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Critchley, Julian
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hughes-Young, Michael
Partridge, E.


Curran, Charles
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Dance, James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


de Ferranti, Basil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jackson, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
James, David
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Doughty, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitman, Sir James


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall


Eden, John
Joseph, Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, David (Eastleigh)




Prior, J. M. L.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Vane, W. M. F.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vickers, Miss Joan


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Pym, Francis
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Walder, David


Quenneil, Miss J. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Walker, Peter


Ramsden, James
Storey, Sir Samuel
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Rawlinson, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wall, Patrick


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Talbot, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene


Rees, Hugh
Tapsell, Peter
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Renton, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Webster, David


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Robertson, sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Taylor, w. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Robson Brown, Sir William
Teeling, Sir William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Roots, William
Temple, John M.
Wise, A. R.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Ronald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


St. Clair, M.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Woodnutt, Mark


Seymour, Leslie
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Woollam, John


Sharples, Richard
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Worsley, Marcus


Shaw, M.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon



Simon, Rt- Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Turner, Colin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Smith, Dudley (Brentf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mr. Whitelaw.


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
van Straubenzee, W. R.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Ainsley, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.


Allason, James
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Millan, Bruce


Awbery, Stan
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Milne, Edward


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Halt, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Monslow, Walter


Bellenger, Bt. Hon. F. J.
Hannan, William
Morris, John


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mort, D. L.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Healey, Denis
Neal, Harold


Blyton, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oliver, G. H.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas


Bowles, Frank
Holt, Arthur
Owen, Will


Boyden, James
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Paget, R. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hoy, James H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Frederick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, Ernest


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, R. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crosland, Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Darling, George
Jeger, George
Randall, Harry


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deer, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Diamond, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Short, Edward


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edelman, Maurice
King, Dr. Horace
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Evans, Albert
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles
Snow, Julian


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank




Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Fletcher, Eric
McInnes, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonenouse, John


Formart, J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Manuel, A. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Richard
Symonds, J. B.


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grey, Charles
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)







Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Weitzman, David
Winterbottom, R. E.


Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thorpe, Jeremy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Timmons, John
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Zilliacus, K.


Wade, Donald
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)



Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, w. R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Warbey, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Lawson and


Watkins, Tudor
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Sydney Irving.

Clause 2.—(REFUSAL OF ADMISSION AND CONDITIONAL ADMISSION.)

The Chairman: The first Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It will be possible to discuss with it the Amendments in page 2, line 21, to leave out subsection (2); in Clause 3, page 3, line 15, to leave out "refusal of admission or"; in Clause 4, page 4, line 3, to leave out paragraph (a), and in Clause 4, page 4, line IL to leave out from first "offence" to the end of the subsection. However, only the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will be moved on which there can be a Division.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out line 16.
The leader in The Times of Monday, 4th December, described this Amendment as an attempt to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. May I make it absolutely clear at the beginning that that is not the intention of the Amendment. So far as I know, the only vehicle which anyone has attempted to use in this Bill is the Irish jaunting car which the Government have been trying to drive in and out and round about the Bill's Clauses. The Amendment is an attempt to improve the Bill and to make it less unpalatable.
All of us, on both sides, attach great importance to the Commonwealth right of free entry of persons—and, I might add, goods. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made that clear, because he said
the right of Commonwealth free entry has been a cherished tradition of the Mother Country and … an important link binding the Commonwealth together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 687.]
If so, why now try to destroy it?
The Amendment preserves that right. It gives the Government power to curb immigration under subsection (1, b) and also under subsection (3). In other words. it would give an immigration

officer power to set a limit on the time for which an immigrant comes here and the right to refuse admittance on grounds of health, security or previous convictions.
The only reason for the consequential Amendment to delete subsection (2) is that it deals with the question of refusal of admission; and if there is no power to refuse admission, the subsection would fall. I do not, however, attach importance and I am not directing my argument to that subsection, because I agree that under subsection (1, b), dealing with conditions of entry, the factors contained in subsection (2) could be relevant.
It is true that since we last dealt with the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put down Amendments limiting the powers of refusal of the Commonwealth right of free entry and preventing existing Commonwealth residents, their children and students from being refused admission under subsection (1, a). Those Amendments, however, do not go far enough. They do not cover the right of a Commonwealth citizen to come to this country as his Mother Country and as his home, whether as a visitor, as somebody returning after an interval or somebody coming, not as a full-time student, but as a part-time student, as many people do, both from the West Indies and from West Africa. My right hon. Friend's Amendments do not effectively heal the wound which the destruction of the Commonwealth right of free entry will cause to the links which, he admits, bind the Commonwealth together.
Whatever we do in this country, which is described by many Commonwealth countries and Colonies as the Mother Country of the Commonwealth, we must set a standard in the Bill that is not less hospitable than that practised in other Commonwealth countries and Colonial Territories. In that respect, I remind the Committee that India gives the right of free entry to Commonwealth subjects and that in the case of Jamaica, whilst


that country gives a six-month period to British subjects and allows permits for all visitors and temporary residents who provide evidence of mean—as we are doing under subsection (2, b), by resolution of the Executive Council it does not require British subjects to provide that evidence. In other words, Jamaica and India are giving to Commonwealth citizens the right of Commonwealth free entry that the Bill destroys.
To consider some of the other Colonial Territories, the Bahamas gives British subjects the right to stay for eight months. Barbados, Bermuda, British Honduras and Kenya give the right to stay for six months. In the Bill, we do not give that right at all. I beg the Government, whatever they do with the Amendment, to repair that gap.
Like myself, other right hon. and hon. Members constantly have visitors from the Commonwealth coming to meet them and to admire the Mother Country. It is quite wrong that these visitors should be retarded in any way at the whim of immigration officers. There is a considerable two-way traffic. Many figures were given to us in the debate on Clause 1, but I should like to put before my right hon. Friend certain figures that I have obtained from the West Indies Migration Services Board of the two-way traffic with the West Indies.
In July, 1961, 6,982 visitors came to this country and 828, or one in eight left. The August figures were 8,713 coming in and 983, or one in nine, going out. In September, the figures were 8,180 and 1,175, or one in seven, going out.
Visitors sometimes come to see their relations and stay for a while before returning. Sometimes Commonwealth visitors take a short period of work or training. We know of the number who work in our hospitals. My right hon. Friend has stated that the nurses will be looked after. What he does not realise is that many untrained girls from the West Indies come as trainees in our hospitals without any training or skill and after a short period they go back to the West Indies. During the time they are here, we ought to be able to

say to them, "You will be allowed to come here for, say, eight months"—which is the time given by the Bahamas—"without question, as of right. You are a Commonwealth citizen. Here, you are welcome." Although distasteful to many of us, the Bill could be so worked that by the deletion of line 16, it would be an acceptable Measure. When one realises the real problems that we face, this would be a happy way out.
5.30 p.m.
What is the objection to doing away with line 16? What will be the Government's answer? They will say, of course, that it adds to the administrative difficulties. They will ask what happens if after eight months the immigrant does not return. They will have to institute a search to find out where he is. But that will have to happen already under the Government's own measure in Clause 2 (1, b). Therefore, if that argument is applied it is an attack on the Government's own system of working the Bill. If they do not have this system of keeping track on immigrants the Bill will be inoperable, as may well be the case.
It may well be that all this provision under Clause 2 (1, b) is too complicated to operate. Just as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary found it was too complicated to operate any control against the Irish, so he may well find that under this subsection the administrative difficulties are greater than his Department had bargained for. But if we are to have that system, let us have it the same for all. In other words, let us do away with this refusal of entry.
Why do I object to that particularly? Quite apart from the principle of the Commonwealth right of free entry, there is the grave disadvantage that we should be putting the selection of immigrants into the determination of an immigration officer. I say nothing at all about the personal esteem in which these officers are held. I make no attack on them, but this is a matter which Parliament should decide and which should not be left to a bureaucratic official at a court. I beg the Government to take a fresh look at this problem. The Amendment is not an attempt to murder their Bill. It is an attempt to improve it. It is an attempt to deal with the problem of the visitor and to keep in


the hands of Parliament the power which it should exercise to lay down who should remain and for how long.

Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment. There was too much in the debate on the previous Clause which indicated that there are some people who are willing to abdicate from providing a metropolis for the British Commonwealth. I regard the Amendment as a deliberate effort to preserve the position of this country as the metropolis of the British Commonwealth. I believe that that would be of inestimable value in keeping together the various peoples within the Commonwealth. I believe that there is yet a chance that if we can preserve a comradeship among all the diverse races who are now in the British Commonwealth and who, during the next few years, will increasingly become independent nations, we shall be able to act as a unified force in a world where there are all too many signs that extreme narrow nationalism will have a very good run during the next few years. I believe that on the lines advocated by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) the adoption of the Amendment would tend to strengthen that position.
The right hon. Member said that this was not an effort to murder the Bill but an effort to improve it. I am not sure that there are not some things that would be best improved by being murdered, but the Amendment will not do that to the Bill. The House has given the Bill a Second Reading and we have had a long discussion on Clause 1 and a decision has been taken on it. I hope that the Government will feel that the arguments adduced by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton were sufficient to justify the Amendment being made.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I wish to add a few words in support of the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and eloquently supported by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I feel grateful, and I expect that the Committee feels grateful, for the self-denying ordinance which hon. Members opposite imposed on their oratory when we were discussing the Motion, "That Clause 1 stand part of

the Bill." We welcome very much their eagerness to get to this Amendment, and I only hope that their meritorious action will not be taken as support for the principle of a timetable for a Bill of this character. I suppose it could be said that if one is to be guillotined in an hour it concentrates the mind wonderfully.
We are a sovereign nation and, clearly, immigration policy is for the individual members of the Commonwealth, ourselves included, to decide. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Amendment is not designed to wreck the Bill. It would preserve the right of our authorities here in the United Kingdom to control immigration, and it is not unreasonable that the Government should wish to strengthen their powers of control. In my constituency we have little or no problem as a result of immigration from the Commonwealth. My constituents have reason to be grateful for the presence of so many oversee Commonwealth citizens and Irish men and Irish women, who, incidentally, are non-aliens, Who fill jobs which it is very difficult to fill. But this is a small island, and we sympathise with the difficulties of some hon. Members in their constituencies.
One cannot say, therefore, that it is unreasonable that the authorities in this country should be armed with certain powers in relation to health and housing, public health and public security. Nor would it be a service to the Commonwealth if this country became unreasonably flooded with immigrants without jobs or homes, or hopes or roots. It would embitter immigrants against the Mother Country and the Commonwealth itself.
But Britain has a special position as the first among equals. As hon. Members opposite have said, we are the heart of the Commonwealth. That is why, while conceding powers of control to the Executive, we desire in the Amendment to maintain the cherished principle of free entry for Commonwealth citizens. Even if I could say that I liked this Bill, I would still say that it is monstrously ill-timed. People nowadays seem to be obsessed by colour and by race. I deplore that, but it is a fact, and people are tremendously sensitive on these matters.
Secondly, the Government at this moment are negotiating with the European Economic Community to see how the interests of the rest of the Commonwealth can be reconciled with British adherence to the Common Market, and to the suspicions of colour prejudice which arise on the Bill is added the suspicion that perhaps the British Government are trying to exclude Commonwealth immigrants in order to make room for immigrants from Continental Europe, according to the Rome Treaty, which provides for the free movement of persons as well as of goods and of capital.
I believe in the economic unity of Europe, and in the association of the nations of the Commonwealth with the nations of Europe. But I also believe that we must maintain the principle that we cannot agree that it should be easier for a foreigner from a continental country, however friendly or neighbourly, to come here than for one of our own fellow-citizens from the Commonwealth. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment with the full support of the Committee, because I believe that then our fellow subjects and fellow citizens from oversea, when we welcome them to our shores, will still be able to say, with pride, "I am a Commonwealth citizen."

Mr. J. Grimond: I want to support the Amendment very briefly, and for three major reasons. The first is because, if it were accepted, it would make the Bill less objectionable, for it would no longer have enshrined within it the principle that the normal view of this country was that immigration from the Commonwealth was not permitted. It would enable us to put a rather better face, at any rate, on the position I would, at the least, like to take up, which is that normally we welcome the free movement of people from the Commonwealth and that we depart from it with great reluctance for stated reasons and not as a general principle.
Secondly, there is the position of those people who want to come here for a short period. There are those who want to train, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). There are a great many

students. It may be said that they will he discussed later in the Bill and that the Government have no intention of preventing their entry. But I maintain that they should have unequivocal free entry and that it should not be left to someone to give them entry as an act of grace. We shall do a great deal of unnecessary damage, even by the Government's standards, if we do not write that principle into the Bill.
Thirdly, I do not accept that it is altogether desirable that the only means of getting into this country for those who want to take up permanent employment here should be by obtaining a voucher. This may lead to certain undesirable practices. There is no doubt that we need a great many immigrants to man our various services, and that it will be in our interests to let them in, possibly under conditions, to see if they can get these jobs.
5.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton looked at the possible objections to the Amendment. The obvious one is that of administrative difficulty, but I hope that the Government will tell us how they are to administer Clause 2 (1, b) and what additional difficulties would be thrown in the way if the Amendment were accepted, for they must keep some contact, under that provision, with those who are admitted even if the Bill goes through as it stands.
Finally, I return to the point, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, that this country cannot afford to be less liberal, less generous and less humane in this matter than other countries of the Commonwealth. Our position vis-à-vis the West Indies—as the parent of the West Indies—our position as the richest member of the Commonwealth, our traditions, and the expression of views throughout the debates on this Bill from both sides of the House, make it imperative that, by the time the Bill reaches the Statute Book, it should at least be as generous as the regulations which are in force in other parts of the British Commonwealth.

Miss Jennie Lee: I am wholly opposed to the Bill, but I do not see why there should not be an honourable alliance in support of the Amendment between those of us who are wholly


opposed to the Bill and the other hon. Members who believe that certain restrictions should be imposed. But I hope that the so-called "tough lads" around do not take too cynical a view of the Amendment as being full of sound and fury and meaning nothing, because I do not believe that anyone is fit to take part in great public affairs if they think that great issues can all be reduced to tangible elements.
There are intangible elements as well as tangible, and in this subject the intangibles have to be kept in mind very much indeed. In British law one is declared innocent until one is proved guilty. That being so, then please let us at least keep Commonwealth citizenship. There may be some very special reason for wanting to exclude an individual, but that cannot be applied to a community.
I believe that the Bill is bad economics and bad politics. I do not see why we should add to both these wrongs by a third wrong which is plainly bad manners. After all, we want the right to enter this country to be a right and not a privilege for Commonwealth citizens. That is the simple point behind the Amendment. I do not feel optimistic enough to believe that the Government will accept the Amendment, but, seriously, I do not see why they should not. I am glad that throughout the Commonwealth publicity has been given to the fact that the whole of the Labour and Liberal Parties, distinguished members of the Conservative Party, and leaders of many religious and other organisations are embarrassed by and wholly hostile to the Bill. The Government owe it not only to Commonwealth citizens but to the extent and depth of feeling against the Bill in the country at least to make this small but important Amendment.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I am not happy about the Bill, for three main reasons, all of which are particularly relevant at the present time and in the present circumstances. First, the Bill impairs—one might almost say destroys—the principle, which is a very important one, of Commonwealth free entry. I thought that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put his finger on the spot very aptly when he said that the Bill implied

that the Government were not prepared to provide a metropolis for the Commonwealth. I think it is most important that we should provide a metropolis for the Commonwealth at this time when we are preparing to enter the Common Market.
Secondly, it implies—and this is equally serious—the suggestion of racial prejudice, and that no Bill passed by the House of Commons should do.
Thirdly, it appears to give, and in practice certainly will give, better treatment to aliens in some respects than to Commonwealth citizens and British subjects. If we go into the Common Market, that will undoubtedly apply to many other aliens as well.
Everyone has to recognise that there is a problem. I do not think that the Bill approaches it in the right way, or entirely in the right spirit. But the great virtue of the Amendment and the reason why I shall support it and hope that the Government will find it in their power to accept it is that it meets most of my three objections while continuing to recognise the existence of a problem.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and I put this Amendment on the Notice Paper independently, although it happened to be in the same terms and to the same effect as an Amendment which had been put down immediately before. This is not a question of adding names on one side or the other. I thought that that explanation might be of some interest to the Committee, because all sorts of fun is, no doubt innocently, poked about strange alliances from time to time. This is not a question of strange alliances but of independent minds looking at a question in a commonsense way and coming to a common conclusion independently of one another. That explains why the name of my hon. Friend and my own name appear on the list of names to the Amendment, headed by that of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
Our reasons for putting down the Amendment were very much those which have already been given in various speeches. I would not think it right to take up the limited time of a guillotined debate to repeat the arguments, good though they were, or perhaps especially because they were so


good. However, I want to add one comment which has not been made.
I am not quite sure what the Clause means. It begins by saying that, subject to certain provisions, the immigration officer "may" do something or other. What does "may" mean in this connection? Does it mean "shall", as normally in such a connotation it would mean? If it means "shall", the interpretation of the Clause is not difficult. It means that once he is satisfied that the immigrant in front of him is someone to whom the Bill applies, the immigration officer can do one of two things and only one of two things. He may refuse admission altogether, or he may admit the immigrant subject to conditions about the length of his stay and about what he will do while he is here.
If the word means "shall" and the immigration officer applies the first of his two alternatives, he will refuse admission to the United Kingdom to any Commonwealth citizen to whom Clause 1 applies. We have passed Clause 1 and we have heard what the Home Secretary has had to say about it. It includes subsection (4), which makes it perfectly clear that the Clause is to apply to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. It then follows that if someone presents himself at one of our ports and admits to being a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, the immigration officer shall refuse him admission. That is what the Bill means.
But we all heard the Home Secretary say that he was not going to do that but was going to preserve the power to do so. Perhaps he would use it and perhaps he would not. If that is the Government's position and if that is a correct interpretation of the Clause and if it is seen in connection with the Home Secretary's declaration of intention, what the Home Secretary has declared and what the Government will be supporting is an intention to breach the Petition of Right.
It will be remembered that the Petition of Right provides in one of its section that the Executive shall not suspend the operation of any Act of Parliament. Even if the word "may" means strictly "may" and not "shall", the immigration officer would have to apply an individual discretion in each indi-

vidual case. But it is just that that the Home Secretary said that he was not going to do. He said that he was not going to apply the Clause to one whole category of persons. I asked him under what power he proposed to do that, and I do not even remember his answer, so little did it seem to have to do with the question asked. Perhaps the Attorney-General will deal with it more specifically
I am not making a technical or legalistic or debating point. This is a constitutional Bill which will have to be administered by Ministers in accordance with the law of the land, of which the Petition of Right is part. I remember, for illustrative purposes, an occasion in 1948 when the House of Commons added to the Criminal Justice Bill a Clause suspending the operation of the death penalty for five years. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was then Home Secretary, did what we all thought was something very sensible. He declared in public that until the House of Lords had dealt with the matter—after all, it might have accepted it—he would advise the prerogative of mercy to be exercised in every capital case. There immediately started a bitter attack upon him under the Petition of Right. A subsequent Conservative Attorney-General wrote a letter to The Times, a most impressive letter, saying that the Labour Home Secretary for the first time was arrogating to himself a right to suspend the law of the land. My right hon. Friend's answer was simple because he was dealing not with the law of the land, but with the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy, which is quite different.
The cases are not parallel, and I have cited that example only to illustrate the kind of argument which I am applying here. In this case there is no question of any kind of the Royal Prerogative or any Ministerial or administrative right to hold the law of the land in reserve and to apply it if one wants to apply it, or not to apply it if one does not want to apply it, or to use it if it is found convenient, or not to use it if that is found convenient.

Mr. John Hobson: I understood that the answer which my right hon. Friend the


Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member was that there were special provisions in the Bill which enabled exemptions to be made. He will find that in Clause 17 (3). Interesting as his argument is, it does not seem to carry the matter much further.

Mr. Silverman: That subsection says:
The Secretary of State may by order extend any exemption conferred by subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section to persons of such additional classes as may be specified in the order.
6.0 p.m.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously argue that that means that he can cut out any one country? If it does, my argument is more serious than I thought, because it means that what was proposed in the series of Amendments which the Committee was denied the opportunity of dividing on, and which caused such an enormous amount of public confusion, is to be done by Order in Council at some subsequent date. He will perhaps have an Order exempting Australia or Canada or New Zealand. He will have power to do that, and in the end we may be left with an Act of Parliament which specifically covers all immigrants from any part of the Commonwealth, and including the Republic of Ireland, but which might be applied only to the West Indies. That is what the hon. and learned Gentleman has given as an answer to my point.
This is a serious matter. As has been said repeatedly, we are dealing with the metropolis of a Commonwealth of Nations founded on law and renouncing any kind of discrimination by colour, by origin, by race, by language, or in any other way. I hope that the Attorney-General will explain this mystery to us, because it seems to me that it goes to the root of the whole matter of this Bill.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I think that perhaps it would be to the convenience of the Committee, particularly as there are so many other Amendments on the Order Paper in relation to this Clause, if I replied now to the debate which has taken place on my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
I have listened with great interest to what he said in support of it. He made

it quite clear that he dislikes, as we all do, interference with the unfettered right of a Commonwealth citizen to enter this country. I agreed with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) when he said that he welcomed free movement into this country and that we departed from this principle with great reluctance.
From what my right hon. Friend has said today, and indeed from what he said on Second Reading, I gather that he is prepared to agree to the imposition of conditions on Commonwealth immigrants; conditions as to their period of stay, their employment or occupation, and, it may be—it has been suggested by some, but I do not know my right hon. Friend's views with regard to it—conditions as to their residence. My right hon. Friend made it clear that in his view it would be sufficient if the immigration officers retained the powers given to them by subsection (1, b). Indeed, I think he recognised that the position could not, and should not, be left as it is today, and that there was a case for the Government taking powers which they did not at the moment possess to deal with the situation which is developing.
I think, therefore, that the real difference between what my right hon. Friend proposes and what is in the Bill comes to this. He thinks that it will suffice to impose conditions on Commonwealth immigrants when they come here; conditions regulating how long they stay, and what they might do, and the attraction of this is that it appears to leave the right of entry unaffected. I assure my right hon. Friend, and those hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Amendment, that we have naturally carefully considered this suggestion, but I must regretfully tell my right hon. Friend that we do not think his proposals would work, or be at all satisfactory either from our point of view or from that of the Commonwealth citizen.
For the reasons that we advanced on Second Reading—and I do not want to take up time stating them again—we are satisfied that the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not by this Bill seek power to control immigration. If we are to control immigration, it follows as night follows day that someone must have power to


refuse admission into the United Kingdom. If that power is not available, we cannot, whatever else we may do, control immigration.
Where I thought I found a fallacy in my right hon. Friend's argument was his contention that the mere imposition of conditions amounted to a curb on immigration. As I shall seek to show, this will not amount to any curb at all.

Mr. David Weitzman: The Government have power under subsection (1, b) to admit subject to conditions, and they will have power under subsection (3, a) to refuse entry on the grounds therein set out. How will the Government's powers be added to by keeping in paragraph (a), and refusing the Amendment?

The Attorney-General: I will deal with that in due course.
I was saying in answer to my right hon. Friend that we dislike having to interfere with the right of free entry. It is unpalatable, but it is inevitable if immigration is to be controlled. I put this before the Committee, because there should be no misconception about it. We do this with reluctance, but if there is to be power to control immigration, it is essential that someone somewhere should have power to refuse admission, and we have given immigration officers the power to do this because the right place to exercise this control is at the port of entry.
I should like to make clear to my right hon. Friend a point which I think may not be appreciated by the Committee. We propose to control immigration, but we do not propose to make general use of the power to impose conditions as to the length of stay and occupation. In the vast majority of cases the immigrant will be free to live his life as he wishes once he has entered, and to stay as long as he likes. I will explain later why in subsection (1) we are taking power to impose conditions, although, as I say, it is not the Government's intention that that should be generally done.
My right hon. Friend suggests that the Commonwealth citizen should be free to enter, but that he should be subject to control while in this country, and he

would apply this quite generally. This is quite different from control of immigration. As my right hon. Friend recognised, it is no use imposing conditions on every Commonwealth immigrant unless there is machinery for enforcement, machinery to see that the conditions are complied with. If my right hon. Friend's suggestion were adopted, I think it would be inevitable that Commonwealth citizens would have to be required to report to the police and to register their movements, like aliens. I feel sure that this would be much objected to.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend suggesting, in all seriousness, that that is the Government's intention, under subsection (1, b)? All that I suggested was that we should allow a Commonwealth citizen to come here for eight months. My right hon. and learned Friend is making a lot of fuss about it.

The Attorney-General: I understand what it is that my right hon. Friend is suggesting. I want to point out to him what I am afraid he has not appreciated, namely, that it is one thing to impose conditions upon a small number of persons and to see that they are enforced, and quite a different thing to impose conditions of the kind that he suggests on every Commonwealth visitor. People may disagree with me, but I do not see how it would be possible to supervise and enforce the general imposition of conditions which applied to every Commonwealth immigrant without making it necessary for him to report to the police and register his movements like an alien.

Mr. Chapman: Mr. Chapman rose—

The Attorney-General: I should like to be allowed to finish my argument, and if I am allowed to do so the hon. Member may not find it necessary to interrupt me. He may disagree with me, but that is the view that I am putting forward.

Mr. Fletcher: Part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that it would be necessary to impose conditions on every immigrant. Why would it be necessary to do so? Surely it would be possible for the Government to take powers to impose conditions but


to do so only in a limited number of cases, where they thought it necessary.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend put forward, as an alternative to the power to refuse admission, a power to impose a limitation of eight months upon the stay of a Commonwealth immigrant. Applying my argument to that suggestion, it seems to me that those conditions would have to be applied to every Commonwealth citizen.

Mr. Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman has not said that.

The Attorney-General: Although he disagrees with me, I think that that follows from my right hon. Friend's argument.
Perhaps I can put it in another way. I do not want to be controversial. I want to deal with the argument on its merits. If a large number of Commonwealth immigrants are subjected to conditions—even if they are not all subjected to them—it will be necessary to enforce those conditions, and I ask my right hon. Friend to face the fact that those to whom the conditions are applied would be required to register and report to the police, like aliens. If that were done I am certain that it would be much objected to. I do not know what it would cost to supervise all the immigrants who were made subject to these conditions, in order to make sure that they were complying with them, but I am sure that it would cost a very great deal.
As for the suggestion that conditions should be imposed restricting the immigrant's rights to work in specific localities—and that suggestion is contained in some of the Amendments, and has been made—I would point out that that would go far beyond anything contemplated in peace time for the control of aliens, and it would not be tolerable to treat Commonwealth citizens worse than aliens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that in certain respects the Bill contemplated providing worse treatment for Commonwealth citizens than for aliens. That is not the case, dealing with aliens generally, but if we applied the system suggested their conditions would be comparable. If all that was done was to impose a limit of eight months upon the period for which a Commonwealth

visitor could stay here, instead of there being power to refuse admission, the visitor would merely leave the country at the end of eight months and return the next day, thereby achieving permanent residence.
The imposition of such conditions upon a large number of Commonwealth immigrants will not control immigration, or curb it. Under the Government's proposals, once a Commonwealth citizen satisfies the immigration officer that he is entitled to enter, under the provisions of subsection (2)—which I appreciate my right hon. Friend wanted to have taken away merely as a consequential Amendment—or can properly be admitted, it will be seldom that any need will arise to impose any condition upon him.
6.15 p.m.
We think it much better to face the fact that the control of immigration involves the imposition of power to refuse admission rather than to preserve the traditional right of free entry in name while imposing conditions on the immigrant which he would find irritating and tiresome, which would involve the establishment of administrative machinery in order to see that these conditions were complied with; which would be expensive for the taxpayer, and which would not operate as any control over the number of immigrants entering the country.
Our attitude will remain what it has always been—one of welcome to the genuine visitor who comes here on holiday, or for social, family, cultural or business reasons. That fact will be emphasised in the instructions to be given to immigration officers. They will be concerned to see that persons coming here for employment do not evade the voucher system by posing as visitors, and also to see that persons are not admitted if they are destitute and clearly liable to become a public charge.

Mrs. Castle: How will they do it?

The Attorney-General: With their considerable experience I do not think that they will have much difficulty in reaching the right conclusion, but if the immigration officer feels some doubt about the bona fides of the professing visitor he can attach a condition, under subsection (1, b), limiting his period of


stay and, in appropriate cases, restricting him from taking employment. If, for instance, the visitor says that he is coming for a six months' visit, and there is reason to doubt that that is true, the visitor can hardly object if a condition is imposed limiting his stay to six months and preventing him from taking employment during that time. It will be open to him to apply to the Home Secretary to remove the condition imposed, and I want to emphasise that there is no intention of imposing conditions, under the power taken in subsection (1), as a matter of routine. It will be done only where the immigration officer feels some doubt.
I appreciate the reasons why my right hon. Friend has moved these Amendments, and why his suggestion has met with such support, but I hope that in the light of what I have said my right hon. Friend will be satisfied that there are valid objections to the course which he proposes. I feel bound to advise the Committee not to accept the Amendments, which would defeat the object of the Bill. Although he does not describe them as such, the Amendments are of a wrecking character. The object of the Bill is to give the Government power to control immigration into this country, and the effect of what he proposes would be to remove that power.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

The Attorney-General: I am coming to the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I have not forgotten what he said, but I wanted to reply to the main arguments which have been advanced before coming to important questions of construction.

Mrs. Castle: The Attorney-General has said that in the normal course of events the Government will not apply the provisions of subsection (1, b) save in very exceptional circumstances, because there cannot be a follow-through. If that is the case, what kind of check does be visualise imposing in order to ensure that the person entering the country with a labour voucher does not, on arrival, either cease to be in the employment or in the situation which provided the grounds upon which he was originally admitted?

The Attorney-General: I have tried to put my arguments as shortly as possible, and I have sought to show the difference between the imposition of conditions and the enforcement of the follow-up procedure in respect of a small number of immigrants and of doing the same thing in the case of a large number. In the small number of cases in which the condition may be imposed by the immigration officer under the Government's proposal there will not be need for much in the way of enforcement machinery. It will be fairly easy to keep track of the person who says he is coming here as a student, to study at a certain university, and to see whether that has in fact happened. That power of imposing conditions—of course, the conditions may be removed by the Home Secretary—is to prevent abuse.
Now may I come to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to whose argument I listened with close attention. He asked whether the word "may" in subsection (1) meant "shall". I can give him an emphatic answer. I have no doubt that "may" in this provision would be interpreted by the courts as "may" and not as "shall". I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will follow the argument. Here we have to give an express power to the immigration officer to do something which he would not otherwise have power to do. We have to give him express power to refuse admittance. We have to give him an express power to impose conditions on admission. But there is no need to make a statutory provision to enable the immigration officer to allow in persons without the imposition of conditions. That power is there quite normally. But there are those three steps.
We are here concerned with what the immigration officer does and does not do. Those are the three things which he can do. He can admit purely and simply, and if it comes within the provisions of subsection (2) or relates to one of the exempted classes, it is open to him to admit. Where it does not, he has a discretion and will be guided by the instructions in his discharge of that discretion. In the exercise of that discretion he can either refuse admittance, admit subject to conditions, or admit without conditions.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, but I should like it to go a little further. Under the corresponding provisions relating to aliens, only the Home Secretary has this power. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman exercises it through the immigration officers. But an officer has no power of his own, it must be the discretion of the Home Secretary.
The Attorney-General is saying that, by this subsection, the immigration officer is given a complete, unfettered discretion to allow immigrants in or to keep them out, as he decides. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really means that, what is the purpose of this Bill? This power could be exercised purely on a colour basis without the immigration officer doing anything wrong.

The Attorney-General: I have said more than once that the immigration officer would act in accordance with the instructions of the Home Secretary.

Mr. S. Silverman: That is not in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: It is in the Bill. In Clause 16 (3), there is a statutory provision
In the exercise of their functions under this Act, immigration officers shall"—
may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there "shall" means "shall", and not "may"—
act in accordance with such instructions as may be given by the Secretary of State …
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need have any fear on that account.
I am afraid that I have taken longer than I intended, but I hope that I have made the position of the Government clear both with regard to this Amendment and to the operation of the provisions in Clause 2 (1, b). I intervened at this stage because I feel that when we consider subsections (2) and (3) and particularly the Government Amendments thereto, the whole picture of the operation of this Clause will be clearer to the Committee. I cannot deal with that in detail now without going out of order. But when the Committee sees the whole picture, hon. Members will realise that, while it is necessary to take power to refuse admittance to the

United Kingdom, this subsection is sensibly and properly constructed.

Mr. Fletcher: This has been an important debate, but I do not think that many hon. Members would agree with the Attorney-General in his hope that he has made the position of the Government clear. He has left the position more confused, at least to me, and I hope that he has not satisfied his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
Listening to the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it seemed to me that on more than one count he exposed the hollowness of the whole of the Government's case. At one time he argued that one reason why he could not accept the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, to delete the power to refuse admission, was that the result would be that the Government would have to rely entirely on the powers in Clause 2 (1, b) which would involve them in the task of imposing conditions on all persons from the Commonwealth entering this country. In order to ensure that those conditions were observed by everyone coming into the country, the Government would have to make all British citizens from the Commonwealth, whether visitors for a long or a short period, report to the police. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that to effect that, the administrative machinery would be so complicated and expensive that the Government could not contemplate it. For those reasons, he said that the Government must have power to refuse admission.
That was the argument of the Attorney-General but it is full of fallacies, and it has left me in doubt about a lot of other things. As Clause 2 (1, b) is drafted, is it contemplated that Commonwealth arrivals, whether as immigrants or visitors, can in any circumstances be compelled to report to the police? As I read it, that is not one of the conditions which can he imposed by an immigration officer.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman says that. What I said was perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman likes to parody my argument, he can.

Mr. Fletcher: I am glad to know that it is not contemplated that any immigrant from the Commonwealth should


be required to report to the police. At any rate we have got that concession from the Government as a result of this debate.
Why, therefore, is it necessary to introduce such a novelty in the Bill? If we accept the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the object is to protect the rights of those who come to this country. Thousands of people come here every year from Canada, Australia, the West Indies, and from Asia, India and Pakistan as of right, as visitors. A great many come for short periods and then return to their homes. One of the troubles about the statistics with which we are continuously confused by the Home Secretary is that they include large numbers of people who come here for short periods only. It is notorious that a lot of Irishmen come for seasonal work and then return to their own country. That is why I have never assumed that the argument about figures in the abstract of visitors is at all convincing, or carries the Government anywhere.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment seems to me the acid test of their sincerity. By refusing this Amendment they are taking power to deny the right of admission as visitors to people from any part of the Commonwealth; a power which cannot possibly be required if there is a desire to control the number of immigrants. Hitherto, we have been told that that is what the Government want. They desire some numerical control to ensure that in no year is there such a flood of immigrants that we cannot deal with them—not that I think that is likely to occur.
6.30 p.m.
This argument about having to report to the police if visitors of whatever colour come from Canada, Australia or Jamaica, is totally different. If they come as visitors for a few months they are to be treated equally. It is not suggested that people are to be treated differently on the grounds of colour. That suggestion has been repudiated, although whether everyone on the Tory back benches agrees I do not know. What does the argument put forward by the Attorney-General mean? If the Committee accepts the Amendment and

grants the right of free entry to Commonwealth visitors, conceding to the Government in Clause 2 (1, b) the right to impose conditions, it would mean, the Attorney-General says, that they would have to insist on Canadians, Australians and Jamaicans reporting to the police.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member again completely misrepresents the argument I advanced. I do not think he does it deliberately, but I made it clear that I was dealing with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that conditions should be imposed on an eight months' stay and that sort of thing on all immigrants to this country.

Mr. Fletcher: Every year a large number of immigrants from the Commonwealth come here for a few months' stay. Some may come for three months and some for six months or more. Originally some may come for three months. If they want to stay for another six months, why should they not do so? Generally we trust Commonwealth immigrants who want to stay for a longer period than they originally intended.

Mr. John Harvey: I am not unsympathetic to the argument of the hon. Member. We want those immigrants to be free to come here, but does not the next subsection of the Clause cover the precise point he is making? It says that there would be no power to prevent any Commonwealth citizen coming here provided he could satisfy an immigration officer that he is in a position to support himself and his dependants while in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fletcher: As I understand from one of the subsections, all they have to do is to satisfy the immigration officer that they can support themselves. They might want to come for three months. Surely they are entitled to extend their stay without the permission of the Home Secretary. Are we to say to immigrants from Commonwealth territories that if they come here for two or three months and friends and relatives want them to extend their stay, they cannot do so without the permission of the Home Secretary? Is that what is being said? We are dealing with a large group of people


who might quite rightly want to come as visitors and then wish to stay here for a longer time. There is nothing to prevent someone from Australia intending to come for a short time and then extending his stay. There ought not to be any provision against that.
The other fallacy in the argument of the Attorney-General was that he said that there were administrative objections to enforcement and so on. One of my hon. Friends pointed out that the Government will not be able to operate Clauses 2 and 3 unless they have a great deal of administrative machinery. That argument will not work. If the argument about administrative expense is used against the argument of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton it means that there will be no expense involved in setting up administrative machinery to ensure that people who come here legitimately—for example to take up some employment for which they have a voucher—shall continue to take up that work or, if they come as students, shall pursue some study and continue to pursue that course of study. On the argument of the Attorney-General they will be trusted to do what they come here to do, and they ought to be so trusted. If the argument of the Attorney-General is right, that powers of that kind are required at all, they are equally required to operate Clause 2 as it stands.
I do not want to delay the proceedings in view of other important Amendments on the Notice Paper, but this seems so serious a matter that I am sure that the Committee will wish to divide upon it.

Mr. Grimond: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that the only method of pursuing this matter is through him and there seems to be a misconception. As I understand it he Attorney-General, he is under the impression that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) would mean that all immigrants would be subject to conditions. As I understand it, that is not the case. A great number of immigrants will be admitted free of any condition and only a small number, for some reason or other, will be subject to conditions, as indeed they are now. I wonder if that could be cleared up.

Mr. Fletcher: That is my understanding. We do not know how the Government will operate the Measure. All we know from the speeches we have heard from the Government is that they are in complete confusion about how to administer it, whether in regard to Irish immigrants, Commonwealth immigrants or students. Now we have the extraordinary admission that they are resisting this Amendment because it would involve setting up machinery which they do not intend to set up for control under subsection (2). I should not have thought it necessary to resist the Amendment, because I should have thought that we could trust visitors from overseas to come and stay here and that we could continue the principle of free entry while giving the Government the powers which they want in the rest of the Clause.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak again on this matter, briefly because hon. Members want to get on with the business. I was dealing with the case and the alternative put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I paid a great deal of attention to what he said about control of entry—which involves a power to refuse admission to those who enter, with the exception of those who come with vouchers—and with conditions.
Although the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has sought to parody my argument, I addressed myself to the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. One reason why we have to resist the Amendment is that if we had anything like a large number of Commonwealth immigrants subject to conditions, it would follow that there would be the consequences which I suggested—I shall not repeat them now—for securing enforcement.
The point I made—which I make again because the hon. Member for Islington, East has perhaps not appreciated it—is that although my right hon. Friend has described this not as a wrecking Amendment or an Amendment seeking to drive a coach-and-four through the Bill, it would in fact make this Bill cease to be one which contains any power to curb immigration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed it would. The


mere imposition of conditions is no curb on the numbers coming to this country.

Mr. Turton: Before my right hon. and learned Friend continues to parody the argument, may I ask him to answer the case which I put? Under the Bill an immigration officer has power to refuse admission, or to admit, or to admit subject to conditions. My Amendment would delete from that the power to refuse admission. Instead of refusing admission in those cases the immigration officer would say, "We are not going to allow you the right to stay". I suggest that eight months could be the limit. That would meet the case and preserve the right of free entry. In all the long intervention made by my right hon. and learned Friend, I have not heard him adduce one argument to meet that point.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry, but I think my right hon. Friend must be suffering from a remarkable degree of deafness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I pointed out at some length—and I repeat it quite shortly—that to do that would be to take away the power to curb immigration because, if we accept the principle that There must be control of immigration it follows—I am repeating what I said—that we must have power to refuse admission.
Although my right hon. Friend does not put it forward as a wrecking Amendment, if it were accepted by the Committee this Amendment would mean that the Bill no longer contained power to control immigration.

Sir Barnett Janner: I listened very carefully to the Attorney-General's explanation. I do not think that he appreciates the anxiety which exists on this side of the Committee and amongst many hon. Members opposite about the provisions of the Bill and the need to make it perfectly obvious, if it is to come into force, that there is no intention on the part of the Government to do what the Attorney-General says they do not intend to do. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to say what is the intention of the Government, but he knows as well as everybody else in the Committee that, whatever may be the Government's intention, the Act will prevail against any present intention of the Government, and any

future Government will be free to put any interpretation they wish on the Measure.
Therefore, in the view of those hon. Members who feel as I do about the Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be particularly cautious and ensure that there is no provision in the Bill which can be abused or interpreted as containing something contrary to the declared intention of the Government.
What right hon. and hon. Members object to is paragraph (a), which places the right of refusal in the hands of an immigration officer. It is not, as the Attorney-General said, a right that is entirely curbed. On the contrary, it is a right bestowed on the immigration officer, subject to certain considerations. He is entitled to use his discretion. This is the important point. He is entitled to use his discretion as to the interpretation of the provisions and as to the facts of the case.
In other words, the immigration officer still has the power to refuse admission. He may be entirely wrong. He may be using his discretion honestly, but the unfortunate person against whom the discretion is used has no right whatsoever of appeal against the use of his discretion. The unfortunate person can be turned away from our shores without any consultation with the Home Office or anyone connected with it.
That is the precise position. If the Attorney-General is honest in his desire to limit and curb the kind of action he wants to take, he certainly must use different words from those contained in paragraph (a). He knows as well as I do that paragraph (a) does not cover what he said it covers.
6.45 p.m.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment, I hope that he will be prepared to say at this stage that he will introduce some Amendment which will indicate that the advice and opinion of the Home Office will be taken in every case where an immigration officer attempts to use his discretion but in which the potential immigrant feels that he is suffering from an injustice. I do not propose to pursue the other arguments. I want to pin the Attorney-General down on this point. Is he prepared to tell the Committee now what


he intends to do to protect the individual who seeks entry and who in our opinion should be entitled to entry in any circumstances? He has told the Committee that he does not think that the provision will cause any injustice. I ask him to tell us how he intends to ensure that it does not.

Mr. Chapman: I want to put one simple point in a few sentences to the Attorney-General. He says that the power to admit subject to three or six months' residence would not allow the Home Office to curb immigration. That was the core of his answer. I submit that it would, because it would mean that those who would normally seek entry at the ports would be told, "You can stay three months or six months and then you must go". That would act as a deterrent, because the word would go back to places like Pakistan and the West Indies, "Do not turn up and hope to put one across the immigration officer. You will be allowed to stay only for three or six months and then you will have to go home again". The mere fact of using the powers suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would amount to a curb on entry, which is exactly what the Attorney-General wants. In these circumstances we are all confused and cannot understand why the Attorney-General will not accept the simple Amendment.

Mr. J. Harvey: I have listened carefully to the debate and have come to the conclusion that there are two main streams of thought in support of the Amendment and one main argument against it. The two main streams in support of the Amendment, as I understand them to be and certainly in order of their importance, are, first, that if the Amendment were accepted we should be preserving the right of Commonwealth free entry, to which I should have throught that all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must attach enormous importance. The second stream—I confess to some concern here—relates to how far we should vest so much power and authority in one fallible human being, the immigration officer. I do not intend any disrespect towards the people who perform these important duties at the ports when I say that all of us must at different times have had

representations about the treatment meted out even now to people coming to this country. These are the two main arguments in favour of the Amendment.
The argument against it is that, if people could come here freely, without being subject to the limitations contained in subsection (2), that is to say, that they must have an employment voucher or be able to show that they can support themselves, there might still be a temptation for people without an employment voucher or without the means of supporting themselves to try to come here in the hope that, if they arrived destitute and with no means of going back, something would be done to save them once they got here.
Those of us who have given thought to this problem have been much concerned about the degree of exploitation which has gone on in the West Indies by Italian shipping companies and in Pakistan by certain airline operators who bring people here, not worrying about the social consequences to them or to us. Therefore, there is a legitimate worry here. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will think again about paragraph (b), which, after all, gives power to admit subject to regulations. The regulations could limit the period. The period does not have to be eight months or even three months. The immigration officer could admit someone and specify a fortnight if he thought it was a flagrant case of abuse. A fortnight would give sufficient time for an appeal to be made on behalf of a person who might be the victim of a wrong decision. If a few people found that, having tried to get round the regulations, they were on their way out again in a week or a fortnight, the abuse would jolly soon stop.
I ask the Attorney-General, without necessarily going further at this stage, if he will undertake between now and Third Reading to look again at the sort of possibilities that I have suggested to him in the hope that he will be able to see some ground for conceding the argument that has been put. If he could do that, I think that he would be helping the House and the country enormously because he would still be enshrining in the Bill the principle of Commonwealth free entry.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I hope that the Attorney-General will not accede to the argument which I know was put forward with the utmost good faith and sincerity by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey). I cannot imagine that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, can be operated in any reasonable way whatever without the power to refuse admission. Let us try to see how that would operate. Here I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has not understood the argument that has been addressed to him. If we had no power to say, "No, you shall not come in", and yet the object of the Bill is to limit immigration to an extent unspecified—the Home Secretary said today that he could not possibly give a figure, and I think that is reasonable enough—and not limit it by some marginal degree, because we would not go through all this controversial Bill to have have some tightening up and marginal limit, but to limit it by a substantial amount in relation to what the immigration would be were it not for the Bill, how should we set about implementing it by imposing periods on people who come in?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: What does the hon. Member mean by immigration? Does he mean by immigration permanent settlement or coming into the country? If he means coming into the country, his argument is absolutely obvious, but that is not the argument in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Bell: I should have thought that it would have been clear that I meant by immigration coming into the country to settle here. I never imagined for a moment that anyone coming into this country for a holiday was an immigrant. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary how obtuse some hon. Gentlemen can be, in a very simple matter. It has been made perfectly clear at every stage of the Bill that no one has the slightest wish to limit the number of people coming here for holidays or temporary visits of any kind. That has been said by the Home Secretary and others and it is perfectly obvious.
The object of the Bill is to limit immigration, by which I mean people coming into the country to settle here. That is

perfectly plain. The suggestion which my right hon. Friend has made is that this object could be achieved by putting time limits on people when they come here and attempting to turn them into visitors.
If that is what we are trying to do it is obvious that we must impose that sort of limitation on a very large number of people because, without the Bill, we should have very large numbers coming here as immigrants. That seems obvious, and I am surprised that it is not, apparently, appreciated by hon. Members opposite that it must be so. If we impose on people a condition that they must not stay in this country for more than eight months, or a year, or two years, or whatever the period may be, there must exist some machinery to enforce that condition. That inevitably implies registration of those immigrants. It implies their reporting to the police, and being tracked down on a quite for midible scale to ensure compliance with the condition. Is that a desirable state of affairs?
I have sought to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East because, although I think that his object is the same as mine in supporting the Bill, I do not think that to be a good way to treat Commonwealth immigrants. I believe that it is very much better to say quite frankly that the object of the Bill is to reduce by an appreciable amount the number of immigrants. We should do that openly and clearly, by saying "No" to some rather than by imposing on the great majority of those coming in either as immigrants or visitors—and, of course, the condition would have to be imposed on visitors as well as on immigrants—a condition that would put them under supervision and scrutiny for the whole of their stay.
That being so, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not even give an undertaking that might deceive anyone into thinking that this was a possible, acceptable way of carrying out the Bill's purpose. There are hon. Members opposite, and, perhaps, some of my hon. Friends, who do not dike the purpose of this Measure but, at least, accepting its purpose, it should be our common endeavour to find a reasonable, sensible and practicable—and, indeed, civil—way of carrying out that purpose.


As I do not think that my right hon. Friend's Amendment would provide any of those things, I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Looking at the Bill. I very much doubt whether there is power to admit without condition at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) referred to the question of "may" and "shall" in relation to subsection (1), but that subsection provides a power either to refuse admission or to admit subject to conditions. That can be read as an alternative of either refusing, or admitting subject to conditions.
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will bear in mind that by Clause 2 (2, a) everybody who can support himself is entitled to come in as of right. There is, therefore, no need at all to rely on the power to admit without condition in order to get in this category of visitors, and the like. Therefore, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing is to rely on what he says exists, namely, a power to admit without condition, in order to let in the Irish, but that was not in contemplation when the Bill was drawn up. It is obviously intended that the Irish should be within the Bill.
When we look at what categories are dealt with in this Measure we find that Clause 17 (3) provides that categories

are to be excluded from the Bill's provisions by Statutory Instrument, but here we have a whole category of Irish being excluded without any Statutory Instrument at all but merely on the instructions of the Home Secretary to the immigration officer. This, apparently, can be carried on indefinitely. Therefore, according to the Attorney-General, it can go on by excluding Irish, by excluding Indians, by excluding Pakistanis and by excluding everyone we like merely on instructions that do not come before this House at any stage, whereas, if we want to exclude some limited category of people under Clause 17, such as some members of forces, we must have a Statutory Instrument and the approval of the House to its being done.

It seems to me, in other words, that the whole interpretation which the Attorney-General is placing upon this Clause to which the Amendment refers, looks as though it might be very much with an eye on the Irish and not at all on the intention of the draftsman when the Bill was drafted. This really is a matter that needs very careful consideration and, without being reconsidered, it should certainly he done by means of the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 249, Noes 185.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Buck, Antony
de Ferranti, Basil


Aitken, W. T.
Bullard, Denys
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Allason, James
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Burden, F. A.
Doughty, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Drayson, G. B.


Barber, Anthony
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
du Cann, Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Duncan, Sir James


Barter, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Eden, John


Batsford, Brian
Channon, H. P. G.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Chataway, Christopher
Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Biffen, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bingham, R. M.
Cole, Norman
Finlay, Graeme


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Collard, Richard
Fletcher-Cooks, Charles


Bishop, F. P.
Cooke, Robert
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bossom, Clive
Corfield, F. V.
Freeth, Denzil


Bourne-Arton, A.
Costain, A. P.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Box, Donald
Coulson, Michael
Gammans, Lady


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gardner, Edward


Boyle, Sir Edward
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Curran, Charles
Godber, J. B.


Brooman-White, R.
Dance, James
Goodhart, Philip


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Deedes, W. F.
Gough, Frederick




Grant, Rt Hon. William
Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Seymour, Leslie


Green, Alan
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharples, Richard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Shaw, M.


Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas
Shepherd, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, Ray
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hay, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morgan, William
Storey, Sir Samuel


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Gerald
Talbot, John E.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tapsell, Peter


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hobson, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Teeling, Sir William


Hollingworth, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Temple, John M.


Hope. Rt. Hon. Lord John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hopkins, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hornby, R. P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Partridge, E.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peel, John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Turner, Colin


Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jackson, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


James, David
Pitman, Sir James
Vickers, Miss Joan


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pott, Percivall
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Walder, David


Joseph, Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Prior, J. M. L.
Ward, Dame Irene


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Kershaw, Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Webster, David


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Leavey, J. A.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, William


Leburn, Gilmour
Ramsden, James
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wise, A. R.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees, Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Longbottom, Charles
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Loveys, Walter H.
Renton, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Woollam, John


MacArthur, Ian
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R.(B'pool, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Macleod, Rt Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, Sir William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Roots, William



McMaster, Stanley R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, Ronald
Mr. Gordon Campbell and




Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Anthony
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)


Ainsley, William
Darling, George
Ginsburg, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gooch, E. G.


Awbery, Stan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gourlay, Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grey, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bence, Cyril
Deer, George
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bennett, J. (Clasgow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J,


Benson, Sir George
Diamond, John
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Berkeley, Humphry
Dodds, Norman
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blyton, William
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hannan, William


Boardman, H.
Edelman, Maurice
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hayman, F. H.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Healey, Denis


Bowles, Frank
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Boyden, James
Evans, Albert
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fernyhough, E.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Finch, Harold
Hilton, A. V.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric
Holman, Percy


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Holt, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Callaghan, James
Forman, J. C.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hoy, James H.


Chapman, Donald
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)







Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hunter, A. E.
Morris, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mort, D. L.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Moyle, Arthur
Steele, Thomas


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold
Stones, William


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Janner. Sir Barnett
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Jeger, George
Oliver, G. H.
Swingler, Stephen


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Owen, Well
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, J, Idwal (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Kelley, Richard
Parker, John
Timmons, John


Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, Frederick
Wade, Donald


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin


Lawson, George
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Warbey, William


Lee, Miss Jennie (Carmock)
Popplewell, Ernest
Watkins, Tudor


Lewis, Arthur (west Ham, N.)
Prentice, R. E.
Weitzman, David


Lipton, Marcus
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Louglin, Charles
Probert, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Randall, Harry
Whitlock, William


McCann, John
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


MacColl, James
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


McInnes, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robert, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McLeavy, Frank
Roes, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Manuel, A. C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Marsh, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Mason, Roy
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



Milne, Edward
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchison, G. B.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Turton and Mr. Biggs-Davison.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move in page 2, line 17, to leave out from "to" to "for" in line 19 and to insert:
a condition restricting the period for which he may remain there, with or without conditions.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): During the discussion of this Amendment reference may also be made to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) in page 2, line 18, leave out from "conditions" to "for" in line 19, and that in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in page 2, line 19, leave out from "there" to end of line 20, although they are not selected for Division.

Mr. Renton: This is a rather technical Amendment and the clue to it is the replacement of the word "or" by the words "with or without". The effect of making this simple Amendment is that a time condition could still be imposed by itself but an employment condition could be imposed only if there was a time condition. The employment condition could be imposed only as an adjunct to a time condition.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. It is difficult to hear what the Minister is saying. Could he perhaps repeat his last words more loudly?

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will speak a little more clearly.

Mr. Renton: I do not think my voice lacked clarity, Mr. Blackburn. There was a general hubbub in the Chamber. I thank the hon. Lady for raising the point. Perhaps I shall not have to speak so loudly now. I was saying that the effect of the Amendment is that a time condition could still be imposed by itself but that an employment condition could not be imposed by itself but only in conjunction with a time condition.
We have decided that we could do without the power to attach employment conditions only because we are content that the whole-time employment should be governed by the voucher system and the Committee will recognise that the possession of a voucher gives unrestricted right of entry. This new wording emphasises our policy; that conditions are to be used only in doubtful cases and not as a normal routine to cover all temporary visits. This point


has already been dealt with at some length.
Conditions will not be used to support the voucher system, when people are coming obviously only for a visit, in the case of returning residents or when it is clear that whole-time study is all that is intended. The conditions may be found necessary and may be imposed when the true reason for coming here appears to be to obtain employment without any voucher, and so to circumvent the voucher system, although the person claims to be a visitor or student. Conditions will be imposed especially when there is doubt about the intended purpose of the visit or where the person coming may be a charge on public funds if he stayed longer than a certain time. In those cases the only alternative to refusing admission would be to admit, subject to conditions. In other words, this power to attach conditions will enable many people to come here for a limited time who might otherwise have to be turned away.
I do not propose, at this stage, to comment on the two other Amendments which you stated, Mr. Blackburn, could be referred to along with this one. I would, naturally, wish to hear what hon. Gentlemen opposite have to say about them before commenting. I hope that now that I have explained our policy with regard to conditions and the very limited use we intend to make of them, any fears hon. Gentlemen opposite may have had about this matter have, to a great extent, been met.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: We are now considering the case of immigrants on whom conditions are to be imposed. We have been told that there may not be many cases, but we are really in a state of very great doubt. We do not know how this provision will operate over a period of time, and I would draw the attention of the Committee to the words at the end of Clause 2 (1, b) which state
… for regulating his employment or occupation there.
The object of the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is to delete those words. It was tabled partly to draw attention to

that wording but also to express some concern about the possible operation of the Clause.
I understand that these conditions are to be coupled with conditions affecting the period for which the immigrant will be allowed to remain here. That is the intention of the Government's Amendment and I appreciate that that makes some difference to the effect of the Clause—but it does not altogether remove my feelings of concern about the possible outcome of these words. After all, we must presume—since the words are there—that they are to be used.
The condition of employment is not merely designed to ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for employment. It goes further than that and imposes a condition for the whole of the period that the immigrant is in this country. I should have thought that that introduced a somewhat dangerous principle, for there are two possible consequences. We may have a new kind of direction of labour. We also, I think, will have two kinds of Commonwealth citizens. One might call them first-class and second-class citizens—the first-class citizens being those who can follow such employment as they think fit and the others being those who are subject to this control over their employment during the whole of the time they are resident in Britain.
I understand that this goes further than making entry conditional on proof of a job being available, and surely, if that is so, we are entitled to ask what will happen, for instance, in the case of an immigrant changing his employment or in the event of his being temporarily unemployed. Will this involve a risk of deportation? Exactly how will the Government's proposals operate? Is there to be a duty on the manager or official of a labour exchange in the case of an immigrant who is subject to this condition to inform the Home Office immediately the immigrant moves from one job to another or is temporarily unemployed?
I am well aware that fears exist in certain parts of the country about the danger of immigrants swelling the numbers of unemployed. There is a certain amount of prejudice—whether there be any basis for it I do not know—that immigrants may come into the country


and live merely on unemployment pay. I have endeavoured to ascertain the facts in my own area of the West Riding of Yorkshire. A considerable number of Pakistanis and West Indians come into my own borough of Huddersfield and other parts of the West Riding.
I spent quite a long time discussing this matter with the manager of the Huddersfield Employment Exchange. I was interested to find that there was no evidence at all to show that any immigrants came here in order to enjoy unemployment pay. They came here with the very clear desire and object of obtaining work. Speaking very generally, I think that some of the West Indians come here with the idea of settling, others with the idea of working for a number of years and then going back to the West Indies. As regards the Pakistanis, in the main—I am not talking about students but those who come to work—they come here to save from their earnings and return later to their own country, gaining thereby some advancement in their position in life and the possibility, perhaps, of buying a small plot of land, and enjoying the benefits of the money they have earned while over here. Quite definitely, I could not find any evidence of immigrants coming here, as is sometimes said, merely to get the benefits of the Welfare State.
How is the Clause to operate? Although, if what I have said is right, as I believe it is, immigrants do not come here merely to swell the numbers of unemployed, it is true in my own area at least that, during the last year, the flow of immigrants was greater than the number of jobs becoming available, and this has tended to increase, perhaps temporarily, the number of unemployed. As I understand it, the wording of the Bill at this point is not intended to deal with the problem of the flow of immigrants and the effect on unemployment but to deal with certain individuals upon whom conditions as to employment are to be imposed. I should have thought that the whole question of flow and the kind of work which immigrants tend to take up when they come here was clearly a matter for consultation between this Government and the Governments of the other Commonwealth countries rather than for regulation by officials.
Further, I should feel that the Clause will put too great a power in the hands of immigration officers, however anxious they may be to carry out their duties properly and fairly. As I understand it, an immigration officer is not only to be directed as to whom he shall or shall not allow in but he is to be given directions also as to what kind of employment an immigrant is to follow during the whole of his time in this country.
Although I do not wish in any way to exaggerate the dangers, and I do not think that I do exaggerate, I fear that another danger is inherent in the Clause. An employer might say to an immigrant employed by him, "Unless you do as you are told, you will run the risk of deportation". I do not suggest that many employers will do that, but the possibility is there. I do not know what the attitude of trade unions will be to this principle. It is something new which we should consider very carefully.
Another consequence is that the Clause may limit the type of employment available for immigrants. Indeed, the situation may be almost comparable in its potentialities to what we know occurs in South Africa. Generally speaking, immigrants from the West Indies tend to take unskilled jobs, but one of the advantages to the West Indies of immigration being allowed is that some West Indians learn skilled jobs here and then return to their own country with the advantage of having gained some knowledge of skilled work. This should be encouraged. The danger is that the Clause may——

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will cause me less anxiety if he stops referring to the Clause and refers to the subsection or to the Amendment.

Mr. Wade: I am obliged, Mr. Blackburn. The danger is that the subsection may be used—this may not be the Home Secretary's intention—in such a way that we shall introduce the principle of direction of labour. Until we know a great deal more about the regulations which are to be laid, we cannot feel satisfied with the subsection as at present worded.

Mr. Renton: Perhaps I should reply briefly at once to the hon. Gentleman


the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) because his speech was based on a complete misunderstanding. We have never proposed that there shall be any detailed control of labour under or in connection with the Bill. What we have put forward in the Bill and have made clear in speeches is that those who wish to enter employment in this country will normally be required to have employment vouchers, but there will be no conditions attached to employment vouchers. There is no power taken in the Bill to attach conditions to employment vouchers, and, once a person comes here on an employment voucher, he will be entitled to stop here as long as he likes unless recommended for deportation.

Miss Lee: We must have this quite clear. Let us suppose that someone comes here with an authentic voucher to take a job, and that the job folds up on him, as it might do. There will then be no restriction whatever on his looking for another job?

Mr. Renton: No restriction on his getting another job. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, if he has not already made that clear, will do so at a later stage, if we reach it today.
The one point which remains for consideration is the effect of the word "regulating" here. I say candidly that I should like to consider it once more because it may well be that something indicating prohibition would be more appropriate. It is certainly not intended to use this provision for purposes of detailed employment control. Lest the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West should have any fear that it might do that, I should like to consider it again.

Mrs. Castle: I heard with some alarm the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that conditions would not be applied to people with vouchers, to obvious visitors and to whole-time students. Presumably, this means that they will be applied to the large number of students who come over here——

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Lady will receive an answer to that on another Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: I think we should have it clear now, Mr. Blackburn, because it

arises from the statement of the Minister of State in this connection and it affects our attitude to the imposition of conditions. I feel that we should know what is covered by it.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, many people come here and take a job in order to maintain themselves while they stay. They cannot get scholarships from their own countries because their own countries are too poor to give them. Are we to take it that persons of that kind who will not have an employment voucher will be subjected to these conditions and might indeed be regarded as people who would be allowed to stay here only for——

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady, but I think I must do so. There are later Amendments dealing with this very point, and the whole matter can be dealt with at that time.

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, but the Secretary of State's later Amendment deals with a different aspect from the one with which I am now concerned. The Minister of State has referred to a certain category of student. In those circumstances, I wish to ask him whether, he having gone out of his way to mention this category, it means that the type of student to which I referred will be subject to the employment conditions which he mentioned.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I may be extremely obtuse, but the other possibility is that the Clause is very obscure. I do not understand the situation or what difference the Government's Amendment to the subsection makes, and I have not been enlightened on the point by what the Minister of State has said. As I say, it may be my natural obtuseness, but I cannot understand the position and I do not know how many other hon. Members understand it.
The Minister of State said that all those who come into this country under the voucher system will not have any conditions applied to them. They will be able to move from one job to another. If they lose a job they will be able to remain out of work for a period. In other words, they will be completely free citizens here without any conditions


imposed on them. They will have all the rights which Commonwealth citizens in this country have at present. But what happens about the people who come in under subsection (1)? The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some of the people who would not be dealt with by subsection (1, b) which he wishes to amend and which some of us wish to amend in a different sense. Who will be dealt with under this subsection? What is the reason for it?
The Minister of State may say that if this provision were not in the Bill then some people would be more stringently dealt with than others and, therefore, the subsection gives the immigration officers greater freedom than they otherwise would have to let in more people. If that is the purpose, then everything depends on the instructions given to the immigration officers about how they should act under the subsection. We have not been told anything about those instructions. I am not sure at what point in the Bill we are to be told the instructions which will be given to immigration officers.
In an earlier debate, the Home Secretary came along very late in the proceedings and told us that at some point we should be told the instructions which would be given to immigration officers under the Bill. I want to know whether we are to be told the instructions to be given to immigration officers under subsection (1). If instructions under the subsection to immigration officers are to be included among those which we have been promised we should be told about, why do not the Government tell us what those instructions will be now? What is the use of discussing the subsection if we are not told how the instructions will be applied?
I do not see how we can be very enthusiastic about the Clause if we are not told what instructions will be given to immigration officers under subsection (1). The situation described by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) is perfectly correct. We shall have two different kinds of citizen of the Commonwealth in different categories in the country. One Commonwealth citizen will be able to say to another, "I am a voucher man. What about you? Are you under different conditions?" What happens to the

citizen of the Commonwealth who comes in under this Clause under which the immigration officer retains the power, even with the Government's Amendment, of being able to say to him, "You can come in for only three or six months"? Will he be asked to report to the police?
We had a long debate in which the Attorney-General told us that this subsection will not be very extensively used. But that does not alter the principle of the matter. Even if it is not extensively used, presumably there will have to be some instrument for carrying it into effect when it is used. The Attorney-General's argument was that if we are to make this Clause effective we must have some means to carry it out. He hinted that in order to carry it out there might have to be some sort of surveillance by the police or some kind of report to the police. Will those members of the Commonwealth admitted under subsection (1) have to go through the procedure of reporting to the police?

Mr. Renton: No.

Mr. Foot: Then how can the subsection be carried out? What the Attorney-General told us previously—I know that we cannot go back to that—goes down the drain, and it is too late to remedy it. If someone disregards an immigration officer's condition that he is entitled to stay for three months, what law has he broken? If he has not broken a law, presumably he can stay here.
I do not see how it is possible to escape the difficulty which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, namely, that we shall have two categories of immigrant. I hope that the Government will not be content with the very confused situation left by the introduction of their own Amendment but will consider all the Amendments tabled to this subsection and will look at the whole question again.

Mr. Renton: A great deal of what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) says goes much further than these Amendments, but may I answer his perfectly fair question as to what is the sanction behind the procedure for attaching conditions. If anyone is in breach of a condition laid upon him, he commits at offence under Clause 4 and will attract


the penalties laid down in a later Clause. The hon. Gentleman asked how we should know whether people were in breach of the conditions laid upon them. The answer is that a note will be taken of that comparatively small number of cases in which conditions are imposed and we shall have a means of finding out whether people are in breach of the conditions laid upon them without any question of reporting to the police.

Mr. M. Foot: How?

Mr. Renton: I do not think that I need to reveal all the detailed administrative arrangements which we make for occasions like this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] It is entirely a question of administration. Statutory provision is not needed to support it.
All that I need to say to the Committee is this. By taking a note of cases in which conditions are attached and by noting whether people with those conditions have left the country in time, we shall know whether there has been a breach. If there has been a breach, the case will be recorded. The sanction lies in the fact that a penalty will be attracted.

Mr. D. Howell: How will the Government find out if a person is in breach?

Mr. Renton: We shall have our means of finding out, but it does not involve any question of registration or of reporting to the police. The sanction will be there.

Mr. Howell: What about MI5?

Mr. Renton: There is no question of MI5.

Miss Lee: Suppose that a gay young Australian comes over here with a temporary permit, works for six months and earns reasonably well and spends reasonably well. At the end of that time his duty is to return to Australia. Suppose that he is broke. Will his passage back to Australia be paid, or what arrangements will be made for him?

Mr. Renton: To be candid, that is a hypothetical case of a very detailed kind. I do not see how any useful purpose is served by discussing exactly

how the machinery will work in a case such as that. All that I would ask the hon. Lady to accept is that we do not anticipate any serious difficulty in this matter.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Minister of State please answer my questions, which arose from his speech on the Clause? An attempt was made to imply that I was out of order because I referred to students. The question of students was clearly raised by the Minister. I asked him questions which might influence my voting on the Clause. I should like him to reply because, under the Guillotine, there is no guarantee that we shall reach the later Clauses. We are therefore entitled to answers to specific questions.

Mr. D. Howell: There was a disposition on this side to support the Amendment until we heard it explained. I appreciate the magnanimity of the Minister of State in moving it, because he clearly wanted the Committee to understand that the Amendment represented a liberalisation of the Bill. We are all concerned with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
Subsection (2, b), as it will be amended, will give powers to an immigration officer to
admit him into the United Kingdom subject to a condition restricting the period for which he may remain there, with or without conditions for regulating his employment or occupation there.
That is as wide open as the barn door. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said, in certain circumstances it means a direction of labour.
The Minister of State is asking us to take on trust the good intentions of the Government. The Bill might be in force for a long time and under another Government. No Minister is entitled to say, "We are asking you to put this on the Statute Book, but as long as we are in power we shall interpret it liberally", when later there might be a different Home Secretary or Government who interpret the Bill entirely differently. If the Government want this provision now to deal with specific cases, I do not see why they should not write the specific types of case into the Bill.
Secondly, the Minister said that this provision would be used only for borderline cases. Even if we jump the constitutional point which I have just raised,


we are entitled to know what the borderline cases are likely to be. They will not be people who come in with vouchers. Presumably, they will not be people who come in under the quota system. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has hinted, they are more likely to be people who arrive from the older parts of the Commonwealth and present themselves at the ports or airports for admission. These are the people to whom conditions are likely to apply. We are entitled to know in what circumstances the conditions would be laid down, what they are likely to be and what redress the Government will have if they are broken. A great responsibility is being placed upon immigration officers who ought not to have to bear it.
Thirdly, what steps will the Government take to find out whether the conditions are broken? It is not a bit of good the Minister saying, "You cannot expect us to tell you what steps we are taking. We have our means and we shall implement them." This takes us into a serious situation. The Home Secretary is a great custodian of our civil liberties and would be loath to have anything that would detract from them. That being so, we are entitled to know what machinery the Government would use to find out how people break the conditions laid down by the subsection. Parliament is entitled to know.
7.45 p.m.
These are not great matters of State secrecy in which MI 5 would be used. They are matters affecting ordinary human beings. Whatever views we have about the Bill, we are entitled to know what method the Government would use to ascertain how people break the conditions that are imposed. The Minister of State has not tried to give us any information about this, but has completely evaded the issue. Some of us who were predisposed to support the Amendment because we considered it an improvement might have to think again if we do not get a better interpretation of the Clause than we have had hitherto.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(1A) The power to refuse admission or admit subject to conditions under this section shall

not be exercised, except as provided by subsection (3A), in the case of any person who satisfies an immigration officer that he or she—
(a) is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or was so resident at any time within the past two years; or
(b) is the wife, or a child under sixteen years of age, of a Commonwealth citizen who is resident in the United Kingdom or of a Commonwealth citizen (not being a person who is on that occasion refused admission into the United Kingdom) with whom she or he enters or seeks to enter the United Kingdom.
I understand, Mr. Arbuthnot, that it is agreeable for us to discuss at the same time the Amendment in line 21, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 22, and insert:
Without prejudice to subsection (1A) of this section, the power to refuse admission under this section shall not be exercised, except as provided by subsections (3) and (3A)".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot) indicated assent.

Mr. Butler: These Amendments deal with the admission of returning residents' wives and children and there is a separate Amendment in my name—in line 30, at end insert:
(b) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of attending a course of study at any university, college, school or other institution in the United Kingdom, being a course which will occupy the whole or a substantial part of his time; or—
which deals with students. It may be convenient if I explain briefly what the Government have tried to do in these Amendments. There has never been any doubt in our minds that returning residents, wives and dependent children ought to be admitted. I hope, therefore, that we can discuss the Amendment without undue controversy.
A desire has been expressed, on both sides of the Committee, that our intentions in these matters should be made clear in the terms of the Bill and should not be left to be framed in administrative instructions to immigration officers. Although it was not our original idea in drafting the Bill, the Amendments have been put down with a view to meeting the wishes of the Committee in our previous discussions.
There are difficulties about trying to define groups of people in immigration Statutes, because the very person who wants to make such a definition often runs into undue rigidity, which might,


for example, as I shall explain later about children, prevent the admission of children who might legitimately be brought in. In the earlier parts of our discussion, I used the expression that all we would get was a basic statutory wording. That is what we have here.
I want, however, to supplement that. I have already undertaken that the general lines of instructions to immigration officers will be made available to the House and to the public. This is the first time it has been done. I therefore inform the Committee that a White Paper containing this information will be published before the Report stage. The reason why it is not published now is that I want to take into consideration for the final draft for immigration officers the sort of arguments that were made on the last Amendment. We shall take into account points made in Committee in publishing the final draft, which I have already prepared. That, I hope, will be convenient.
The present Amendments, following the existing lines of Clause 2, are framed in terms of classes of person about whose status the immigration officer has to be satisfied. Once the immigration officer is satisfied, the result follows automatically. The first group in the Amendment are those who are ordinarily resident or who have been so resident in the past two years previous to their seeking entry. The only exception to the guarantee of entry is the obvious one that a resident who has been deported naturally, I suppose, loses his right to return.
This part of the Amendment meets the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and (Mahon (Mr. Turton) about the Commonwealth citizen who has settled here but goes home for a holiday. He would be covered. It is not unreasonable that I should tell the Committee that after two years' absence an immigrant should lose his automatic right to return, but the liberal attitude with which we regard the Amendment would still give immigration officers, as will appear in the instructions, ample discretion to admit people who have been away for more than two years. They will be told that in exercising that discretion they should have regard Ito the length of previous residence in the United Kingdom.
The next point deals with wives and children under 16. In earlier debates it was suggested that the Government's assurances about the admission of wives were not enough, since the immigration officer would retain a discretion to refuse entry on certain specified grounds. The Amendment which I am moving, I hope, meets these anxieties. It has the effect, as promised by the Attorney-General in a previous discussion, that wives cannot be refused entry on medical grounds or on grounds of criminal record. Nor can their stay be made subject to conditions. That amply meets what my right hon. and learned Friend undertook. The Amendment gives a total guarantee of entry to a person who satisfies the immigration officer that her husband is resident here, and to a wife accompanying her husband, if he is admitted. The words in brackets in the Amendment are necessary to meet the situation in which the head of the family is refused admission. They give power to the immigration officer in such circumstances also to refuse entry to his wife.
The Amendment does not deal with the case of a woman who is living in permanent association with a man but is not legally married to him—a situation which I understand frequently obtains among West Indians. It is impossible to put this in statutory form, and that is why we have not done so, because there are degrees of permanence in such associations which would be difficult, despite the skill of parliamentary counsel, to write into the Statute. Therefore, we have to rely here, whether we like it or not, on the discretionary element, that is on the action of the immigration officer acting on the instructions which I shall give him. I can, however, give the Committee an unqualified assurance that the instructions to immigration officers will make clear that where they have reason to suppose that the association is really firm and permanent the woman will be admitted in the same way as a legal wife.
As to the right of admission to children under 16, either or both of whose parents are resident here, or to a child seeking admission with either or both of his parents, the Government Amendment in page 3, line 7 gives a liberal definition


of a child so as to include stepchild, adopted child and, in the case of the mother, illegitimate child. The age limit which we are proposing in the Amendment is only a statutory minimum and the children of 16 or 17 forming part of a family unit, and in some circumstances older children, will be admissible at discretion. But we think that the inherent right of entry should apply roughly speaking to children of school age.
It is relevant to remember that 16 is the age below which children can be included on their parents' passports. There will be discretion to the immigration officer to let in children up to the age of l8 if necessary, but we cannot make this a further discretion, for example, up to 21, because by that time that person should come in on his or her own merits, obtaining a voucher or coming in in the ordinary way. I shall be publishing before the Report stage instructions to immigration officers on this point. I hope that the Amendments express the Government's readiness to meet the wishes of the Committee wherever possible. Provided that we retain the general basis of the control which the Government feel to be essential, we are anxious to make this a sensible and humane Measure, which I hope the Amendments make it.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Did I hear my right hon. Friend aright? Did he say that admission could not be refused to a wife on medical grounds?

Mr. Butler: That is the understanding which the Attorney-General gave the Committee earlier and it is included in the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the Amendments in page 2, line 38, and in page 3, line 7.

Mr. Fletcher: We certainly welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has moved the Amendment which, as he said, was in response to a number of suggestions made by some of my hon. Friends during earlier stages of the Bill. This Amendment protects the position of those citizens of the Commonwealth who at some past time and up to two years before their entry have been resident in this country. I would have hoped that the period of two years might

have been longer, but from what the Home Secretary has said I think that we can take it that his instructions to immigration officers will be so phrased as to enable them to give the same kind of facilities to people who have been resident in this country at even a more remote period in the past.
We also appreciate that these instructions to immigration officers are to be published and made available to hon. Members before Report stage, because that would give us an opportunity of examining them and dealing with them. As has appeared already from our earlier debates, the tenor of these instructions to the immigration officers will be something to which we shall attach great importance as indicating the spirit in which the Bill will be administered. Will the Home Secretary make sure that these instructions are made as explicit as possible, that they are free from ambiguity and are worded in such a way as to ensure that wherever doubt may arise the intending immigrant shall be given the benefit of that doubt?
As I read it, paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection is limited to the wife who comes into the United Kingdom with her husband. Is it necessary that she should have this protection only when she accompanies her husband? Would it not be equally right and proper for her to have the same right if she came at a subsequent stage?
Secondly, we attach great importance to ensuring that a woman who lives in association with an immigrant as his spouse but does not have the status of a wife should have the same rights of entry as are given to a wife. It is well known that in some parts of the Commonwealth it is the practice for marriage to be postponed until after the birth of one child and sometimes of two children. That is the custom and practice in some parts of the West Indies, do doubt for reasons which the people there find appropriate. It is important, therefore, that the rights of these women should be respected in the same way as if they were already married under our system. With these words, I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendments.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the very great improvement he has made to the


Bill by the Amendment. I attach great importance to the right of a Commonwealth citizen, who has lived here for some time but who has returned to the West Indies or to Australia, or wherever it may be, to come back again as of right. That wish has been respected, and I think that two years is a very reasonable period.
I did not follow the complaint of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) about paragraph (b) of the Amendment, because I understand that it covers the position of the wife of a Commonwealth citizen who is already here. One is dealing with two possibilities. Either the wife comes with her husband, in which case she comes under (b), or the husband is already here, in which case she comes under (a). That seems completely to cover the point.
I should certainly like to see the draft which the hon. Gentleman made to cover tests in the cases of women who are single at the moment but who might later become spouses. It cannot have been easy to draft. I do not want to interrupt the debate, which is guillotined, but if he wishes to show me the draft in the Lobby afterwards I should be extremely interested. I think that it would be wiser, in the present form, to retain the definition of a wife as known by English law.

Mr. Fletcher: It should certainly include the mother of a child.

Mr. Turton: I put down an Amendment which has not been called but to which I can refer. This was, in line 9, at end insert:
or
(c) holds a return ticket to his or her country of origin;
(d) holds a through ticket to a country to which his or her entry is assured".
It would have covered a great gap which is left in this Clause. It may be said that a visitor is covered by Clause 2 (2, b), which stipulates that he must be in a position to support himself. He has to adduce evidence of means. I believe that that is the wrong way to treat a visitor.
Many Commonwealth citizens come her and stay with friends. I hope that they will not be asked to produce evidence of their means or the means of

their friends. This is something which I hope my right hon. Friend, who has been extremely helpful at this stage of the Bill, will try to deal with. It is an offence of this Bill that it does not deal with a visitor as well as a visitor is dealt with in colonial legislation. In my Amendment, I merely repeated words which are used either in the Bahaman or Bermudan or West Indian code of legislation, which means that everybody holding a return ticket would be admitted as a right. I think that that would be reasonable.
There is also the person who may hold a through-ticket to another place. A number of Commonwealth citizens come here and then go on to France and Belgium. If we are to join the Common Market, and if we want the Commonwealth to associate with Europe, there will surely be more such cases. It is not sufficient answer to say, "We can leave this to the immigration officer." We are all trying to speak briefly to save time, and I ask my right hon. Friend to think about whether he could amend this provision to include visitors by adopting my form of words or some other form.
I remind him that many Commonwealth visitors would object to having to show that they have enough means to support themselves. How can one tell? It depends on how one is going to live and with whom. I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to meet this point as well as the others which he has so kindly met.

Miss Lee: I want to ask for clarification. The Home Secretary said at one point that where someone was returning to this country after two years' absence he could not have automatic re-entrance and that the decision would be left to the discretion of the immigration officers. Later on he said that he is to publish the instructions that he is to give to immigration officers. In other words, he knows of the anxiety on this side of the Committee and, I think, on his own benches that we should have law and not caprice in this matter. Those two statements of his are to a certain extent in conflict. He says at one point that the position will be left to the discretion of the immigration officers and, at another, that he is to issue specific instructions to these officers.
We in this country are proud of the fact that there is a very high level of integrity in our public servants. The last thing in the world any of us would like to suggest would be that any immigration officer or public servant could be subject either to bribery, blackmail or anything else. But it is a very serious matter if, after one has been absent from the country for more than two years, one has to arrive back here in an atmosphere of uncertainty.
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that a former Commonwealth resident who has been away for more than two years might literally pay his fare back to our shores while still being in some doubt as to whether or not the immigration officer will allow him through? It is surely better that such a person should arrive at our shores knowing whether he is to be admitted or not, and whether he is to be admitted or not must surely be a matter of specific regulation and not something left to the discretion of an immigration officer because, as we are all human, one officer might give one judgment, and a colleague of his might make quite a different judgment, in similar cases.

Mr. Harold Gurden: In reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), I understood my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say that wives would be allowed in without medical check no matter what the medical situation was. That is a rather strange in view of the serious smallpox epidemic we have just experienced. No qualification was made by my right hon. Friend when he replied to the question.
As many of us know, most hon. Members support some control by medical check on immigrants, no matter from whence they come. I have not heard anyone say that people should be allowed in if they are, for instance, contacts in cases of such serious diseases as smallpox. These people may refuse vaccination, and if the situation is as my right hon. Friend said, then such persons refusing vaccination and known to be contacts of such diseases could create a very serious and dangerous situation.

Mr. S. Silverman: If a British subject arrives at a British port suffering from smallpox, what does the hon. Gentleman say should be done about him?

Mr. Gurden: I should certainly think that a person ought to be vaccinated and to go into quarantine in exactly the same way as many Pakistanis have done—much to their credit, for they did not refuse. That would be a fair and satisfactory way of dealing with it.

Mr. Stan Awbery: There is one point which has been brought to my attention and which I should like the Home Secretary to clear up. It is concerned with the refusal of an immigration officer to allow a man to enter this country. Will the refusal be made in the country of origin, or when the man arrives in this country?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that that arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Awbery: My question was whether there would be any appeal against that refusal.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I was surprised that the Home Secretary did not mention his reason for applying sex discrimination as well as racial discrimination in the Bill. In his Amendment he has stipulated that he will make certain provisions for a wife to seek to enter the country along with her husband. He will have observed an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and others of my hon. Friends, seeking to change the word "wife" into "spouse". That would have the effect of making the conditions which the Home Secretary has provided in his Amendment apply not only to the wives of husbands, but to the husbands of wives.
That Amendment would clearly be a sensible way to approach the matter if sex discrimination were not being deliberately applied, but we know that sex discrimination is still rampant in our society. There was mention in the House of Commons only last week of an example of our archaic laws, namely, selection for jury service. That showed how much there is still to be done in this matter. However, it is one thing to recognise the failure of Parliament to have removed sex discrimination from its ancient Statutes, and quite another deliberately to introduce sex discrimination into a new Statute.
I have cast around to think of possible reasons which the Home Secretary might have had in mind. As a number of his hon. Friends are worried about the employment position if immigrants come into the country, it may be thought by some hon. Members opposite that husbands who come in with wives are more likely to constitute a danger to the employment situation than wives entering with husbands; but wives coming with husbands are as likely to seek employment as would be the case the other way round. The monstrous injustice of this provision can be easily seen.
Let me quote a short example. Let us suppose that there is a West Indian nurse in one of our hospitals, doing an essential job in the National Health Service, and she is engaged to marry someone at home, and that after she has been in this country for two or three years, rendering all the service which is involved in nursing, she goes home on holiday and marries her fiancé and seeks to come back to her job in the hospital bringing her husband with her, the husband not being able at once to secure an employment voucher on his own account. Is the position then to be that the husband will be kept out of the country simply because a job is not at once provided for him, with the result that the wife might give up her essential nursing position, or is the new husband-wife relationship to be split up? What is to happen in such circumstances?
There is a very strong case for the Home Secretary studying this matter again, and I hope that he will do so carefully before Report and bring in a provision to deal with it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Chapman: I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that the Minister of State gave an absolute assurance on the latter point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) in a debate on 5th December, when he said:
As to people who want to marry, we propose to instruct the immigration officers to allow people in for this purpose when one of the intended spouses is already here"—
the word is "spouses" so that there is no sex discrimination there—
provided that there is evidence that the parties are personally known to each other.

—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961: Vol. 650, c. 1301–2.]
In other words, in cases of intended marriage, we already have an assurance that spouses and not just wives will be admitted. I do not see what is wrong with a husband joining a career wife over here.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: It happens.

Mr. Chapman: It happens. There are career wives who come from the Commonwealth to work here, and it would be quite wrong to keep the family artificially separated if a man could not prove immediately that he was coming here for a specific job.
I think that the Home Secretary has made an omission in his Amendment in page 3, line 7, leave out from "security" to end of line 9 and add:
(3A) Nothing in this section shall prevent an immigration officer from refusing admission into the United Kingdom in the case of any person in respect of whom a deportation order under Part II of this Act is in force.
(3B) In this section "child" includes a stepchild and an adopted child and, in relation to the mother, an illegitimate child; and for the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed not to be ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at any time when a condition restricting the period for which he may remain there is in force under this section, whether that period has expired or not.
Why is it only the mother who can bring in an illegitimate child? An illegitimate child can come here to join its mother, but not its father. In West Indian practice, it often happens that children born out of wedlock, either the children of common law marriages or simply illegitimate children, are brought up by the grandparents for much of their lives, until either of the spouses, the one who happens to be most attached to the children, takes them over and cares for them later in life.
This is an important matter because it would be open for a man over here to want to bring his illegitimate children to this country, the wife he had subsequently married over here being prepared to accept the children which he had had in the West Indies. It would be quite proper for the wife here to say, "I would be glad to bring up your children; I realise that it is your duty to bring them here and I want to make it your family in every sense. Let us


have your children over here and bring them up." Why are fathers denied that right when illegitimate children are allowed to come here to join their mothers? I do not understand why that differentiation should be made.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Renton.

Dame Irene Ward: May I have a go first?

The Temporary Chairman: Dame Irene Ward.

Dame Irene Ward: I want merely to add my support to the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). I am in some difficulty about this because I understand that the hon. Lady's Amendment has not been selected and that seems almost to pre-ordain that my right hon. Friend will not accept her proposal, which would be regrettable. I do not want to waste the Committee's time, but it would be in the interests of her suggestion for an hon. Member from this side of the Committee to support her proposal.
Another example of the circumstances which might arise would be in the case of a Commonwealth woman doctor working over here. As the National Health Service seems to be about to run into difficulties because of the shortage of doctors, it seems only reasonable for the hon. Lady's proposal to be embodied in the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accepting it.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend's Amendment has received the general approval of both sides of the Committee. It is necessary to bear in mind the clear distinction between what my right hon. Friend earlier called the basic statutory minimum which would give an unrestricted right of entry and those other cases of a more twilight character which could be dealt with by the instructions to the immigration officers. I think that every single example which has been put in the course of this interesting discussion is an example of the kind of case which would be let in under the instructions to the immigration officers.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) referred to

engaged couples, who are covered by my assurance which he quoted. I think it best that such cases should be covered by instructions to the immigration officers. The circumstances are all somewhat complicated and we do not want to have a great deal of drafting. However, I give the assurance that the instructions will cover that.
There is the interesting case of the career wife who is here. Normally, her husband will be let in, but we have strong reasons for not treating husbands and wives in exactly the same way in the granting of unrestricted right of entry. In the Bill, as in our nationality law, we have assumed that the husband is the head of the family and that the wife acquires his domicile.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) do not accept that.

Mr. Renton: Strangely enough, in the context of this Bill that may turn out to prove to be of value to the wife and discrimination in her favour.
May I give an example which springs to mind? Suppose that a husband and wife were living in a Commonwealth country, the husband ill-treated the wife, and finally deserted her and failed to maintain her. She would then have to support herself. Suppose that she manages to get a voucher under our voucher scheme and comes here to work. The husband may hear that she is here, that she has a good job, and decide to follow her to batten on to her, Should we say that that husband should have an unrestricted right of entry into this country? We feel that in a case like this it might be better to make it a matter of discretion.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked what would happen in the case of a returning resident who had been away for more than two years. The instruction to the immigration officers will enable such a case to be treated appropriately and liberally.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) put the hon. Gentleman right about whether wives and children of those both here and accompanying


would be admitted. The answer is that under the terms of the Amendment they would be.
The question of illegitimate children is a difficult one, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, under our law there is no legal relationship between the illegitimate child and the putative father. It is complicated, and therefore perhaps better dealt with by instructions.
I am not sure whether I am in order in replying to the point about return tickets and through tickets raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, but they will provide no real safeguard if somebody wishes to circumvent the voucher system, because it is possible to get a refund on a return ticket, and a through ticket may be only as far as, say, Amsterdam.
As to visitors, those who prove means have an unrestricted right of entry. It will be our policy to continue to welcome visitors, as I said on an earlier Amendment.
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) raised an interesting point about the possibility of people being uncertain about whether they would be allowed to enter, and therefore not wanting to leave their own countries. This anticipates another Amendment on which I think my right hon. Friend may have something sympathetic to say.

Miss Lee: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if someone had been out of the country for more than two years the immigration officer would act under definite rules and instructions. I take it that that eliminates what the Home Secretary said earlier, that in some of these cases this would be left to the discretion of the immigration officer.

Mr. Renton: There are two sets of circumstances. One is the statutory minimum which gives an unrestricted right of entry. In relation to this Amendment, it is a person who satisfies the immigration officer that he or she is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, or was resident within the past two years. In the other case it is the wife or child under 16 of a person here, or an accompanying wife or child under 16. Once the immigration officer has had proved to

him those facts, there is a right of unrestricted entry even by the contents of what will become subsection (4) of this Clause. But in all other cases it will be a question of the immigration officer acting in accordance with instructions from my right hon. Friend. These instructions will some times be very specific and manadatory, but in other cases, of necessity, because the circumstances vary so much, they will leave the immigration officer with something of a discretion. I think that that answers the hon. Lady's point.
I hope that with that explanation these various interesting points which have been raised have now become clear.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us a further explanation about putative fathers? It may well be that for certain purposes our law does not admit any relationship between the putative father and an illegitimate child. I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means, and so far I respectfully agree with him. But there is one obligation which our law fastens, and rightly so, on the putative father, and that is the duty to maintain his illegitimate children. What better way is there of maintaining them than allowing him to bring them along?
How in the world can the Government, because of some academic reference to other aspects of the law of fathers and children, say that a father who has taken the trouble and accepted the obligation of looking after his illegitimate children as he ought to do, and brought them here, is himself exhypothesi entitled to enter, but that his children must be sent back?

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has made an interesting and fair point, will accept it from me that my right hon. Friend wants to deal with this matter in a humane and sensible way. The only point with which we are concerned in the Amendment is whether there should be an unrestricted right of entry, bearing in mind the rather unusual legal position, and we feel that the matter is best dealt with not by giving an unrestricted right of entry—because these are often matters of controversy and the immigration officer may have to make inquiries—but by clear instructions to the immigration officer.

Mrs. Slater: Reverting to the point about wives or spouses, a debate like this shows how little we have progressed on the question of the equality of women. Men still regard women almost as chattels.
The Minister said that the term "wife" rather than "spouse" might protect a wife who had come here. But could not it also protect a husband whose wife might want to come here and land herself if he had a good job?
We are looking at it not from that point of view, but from the point of view of a woman in my constituency who is doing a full-time teaching job, and doing it very well. Her husband wants to join her. Should not the immigration officer be able to protect her by asking her whether she wants her husband to join her? Regulations could be made to ensure that a man could not land himself on his wife who was here, and vice versa. We are living in 1962, and we ought to have a modern approach to the problem.

Mr. M. Foot: Will the instructions to immigration officers on this point be phrased as follows: "Whom God hath joined together our immigration officers shall keep asunder"?

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is our desire to keep husband and wife together so far as possible. I will once more remind the Committee of the terms of the Amendment. We are here giving a wife the unrestricted right of entry to come here with her husband, or to join her husband. I have explained why we do not think that the husband should have an unrestricted right of entry to joint the wile, and why there should be power to refuse him admission. In effect, the hon. Lady is inviting us to consider whether, for the sake of the husband, there should also be power to refuse admission to the wife if the husband has already come here. I will willingly consider anything the hon. Lady wants me to, but she should be clear that that is what she is asking me to do.

Mrs. Hart: Does not the hon. and learned Member agree that in normal circumstances our laws are found to be adequate to protect the wife and husband from each other, if the occasion should arise? If husbands are permitted

to enter there need be no anxiety about the wife upon whom he wishes to impose himself. The wife has our courts available to her for her protection.

Mr. Gurden: I take it that my hon. and learned Friend has forgotten to answer my question about health. No matter how serious a disease one of these persons may have, he or she will be admitted. Is that correct?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: Yes. The Amendment is quite clear in its terms. I need only say, once more, that once a person covered by the Amendment—in this case the wife—has proved that she is within the terms of the Amendment she has the right to come in, and she cannot be excluded on any of the grounds mentioned elsewhere in the Clause. That is the position. If my hon. Friend wishes to know why we have done that, the answer is that we think it more important to keep families together, when possible, than to exclude the occasional individual on health grounds—who, incidentally, can generally be treated in this country.

Mr. Ede: I want to deal with only one point arising from what the hon. and learned Member has said. During our earlier proceedings I mentioned the difficulty arising in the West Indies in connection with men and women living together and being recognised in their community as husband and wife, and then separating. I explained what then happened to the children. When I was in the West Indies presenting a Mace from this House to the Federation—I do not know who will get it now—the Governor-General, who was formerly the Tory Chief Whip in this House, drew my attention to a custom which dealt with this problem.
It goes right back to the days of slavery, and is really the introduction to what is a custom under laws now closely related to British laws, and which has survived although slavery has ended. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who is well acquainted with the customs of the West Indies, will confirm that when the break-up of such a family occurs the general custom is for the grandfather to take the boys


which may have been produced by the cohabitation and the grandmother to take the girls.
I hope that where we have to rely on some of these ancient customs—not British in any way; there is no suggestion that they have anything to do with the Christian religion—an effort will be made to reach a reasonably human solution that is understood by the family concerned.

Mr. Renton: We are willing to instruct the immigration officers to bear all such things in mind, but there is no question of writing them into the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: By the time these instructions have dealt with all the various matters so far discussed, and all the others that will be discussed later, how many volumes will the immigration officers have to read?

Mr. Renton: What the hon. Member says is an argument in favour of leaving some matters to the discretion of the immigration officers.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 21, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 22 and insert:
Without prejudice to subsection (1A) of this section, the power to refuse admission under this section shall not be exercised, except as provided by subsections (3) and (3A)".[Mr. Renton.]

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, after "officer", to insert:
or on appeal from him the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal".

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment may be discussed the following Amendments and proposed New Clause, which will not be voted upon: In page 2, line 43; the last two Amendments in page 3, line 9, and in page 3, line 44; and the New Clause (Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal).

Mr. Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. In the case of any of the other Amendments being accepted by the Government, would they be put to the Committee? The real difficulty will be if the Government accept one.

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendments have not been selected.

The Amendment selected is the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. Fletcher: This Amendment, and the series of Amendments to be discussed with it, have one thing in common. It is that an immigrant should have the right of appeal from a decision made against him by an immigration officer to a tribunal to be set up and to be known as the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal. It is true that some of the Amendments indicate an appeal to some other tribunal, or an appeal of a somewhat different type. But I feel that the common aim is to provide some machinery whereby an intending immigrant from the Commonwealth, who is aggrieved by the decision of an immigration officer, may have his case heard by the appeal tribunal.
We have reached a point in relation to Clause 2 at which, on the assumption that some subsequent Amendment relating to students, either the one in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself or the one in the name of the Home Secretary is accepted, we shall find that by virtue of the Clause there are three classes of immigrant with the right to come to this country, provided they can satisfy the immigration officer of the conditions under which they are entitled to come. Those conditions are, first, that the person is coming here to take up employment and has a voucher from the Ministry of Labour which identifies him. Secondly, there are those who can show that they can support themselves, and thirdly, there are bona fide students. We shall have a discussion later about whether that term should include part-time students, as we think it should, as well as full-time students.
Any person in those three categories can be rejected on certain overriding grounds by the immigration officer. They are medical grounds, because of a transmissible or infectious disease—we shall have a debate to consider the precise terms—secondly, the possession of a criminal record, and thirdly, because the person concerned is a security risk. Therefore, there is a large area within which a person has the right of entry, but the decisions about whether


he can come into this country will depend on the exercise of his discretion by an immigration officer.
We have heard, and we welcome the fact, that detailed instructions will be given to immigration officers. We shall have an opportunity to consider those instructions before the Report stage. But it is apparent from the debates on this and on earlier points that there will be such a variety of circumstances arising that, however explicit and precise may be the code of instructions to the immigration officers, there will still be a large number of cases where decisions must be made by individuals. I am not suggesting that those decisions will ever be arbitrary or capricious. We know that immigration officers are conscientious people who will do their duty to the best of their ability. But there will obviously be a number of cases in which they will make mistakes and in which they will think it their duty to refuse admission.
The liberty of the subject being involved and the inherent rights of British subjects coming from other parts of the Commonwealth, they should not in any event have to take the decision of an immigration officer as final. They should have the right, if his decision is against them, to have their case put before this tribunal. We propose that that right of appeal should obtain where they seek admission because they have employment and a voucher but the immigration officer disputes their identity; if they maintain that they can support themselves but do not satisfy the officer about that, or they claim to be bona fide students and the officer is not satisfied about that.
We can all imagine marginal cases in which there could be room for doubt. In those cases we do not want anyone to have a grievance. We want them to be able to go to a tribunal set up for the purpose. If a man is rejected by a medical inspector on medical grounds, we do not want the decision of one medical inspector to be final. We want the man to be able to go to a medical division of this tribunal to argue his appeal. We all know that the decisions of doctors vary a great deal. It would not be right for an individual to be refused admission merely because one doctor says so and there is no possibility of appeal.
The only case in which we do not suggest an appeal is that in which the Secretary of State decides to refuse admission on security grounds. We recognise that in those cases an appeal would not be appropriate. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) may think differently, but we have an Amendment on the Notice Paper dealing with that part of the Clause which we think will give an individual in those circumstances the security of knowing that his case has been personally considered by the Secretary of State because his written warrant is required.
In the terms of the constitution of the appeal tribunal as set out in the new Clause we do not, of course, insist on the details we have suggested. The purpose of these Amendments is to assert the principle that there should be an appeal. We think it would be of advantage that an appellate tribunal should be constituted roughly in the form suggested in the new Clause. We certainly think it desirable that general grounds of appeal—that is to say, a person's bona fides and grounds for coming here—should be decided by a general division consisting of no fewer than three persons, one of whom should have legal qualifications. We think that there should be a medical division of the tribunal to hear an appeal put forward on medical grounds.
In view of the short time in which we can discuss this Amendment, I do not propose to do more than to observe that in the leading article in The Times of 4th December regarding this Bill under the heading "Deep Unease", to which reference was made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), one of the specific Amendments which was cordially commended was this Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: The purpose of this whole group of Amendments and the new Clause is to establish in one form or another, whichever the Committee may ultimately find the best of the various proposals, some right of appeal. It will be remembered that this question of a right of appeal against more or less arbitrary or discretionary decisions by immigration officers has been the subject of debate before in another connection; I mean in connection with the


aliens registration. After a fairly long and gallant resistance over many years by the Home Office, we succeeded in breaking in in one small quarter by giving a right of appeal to an alien resident here against deportation. It is a limited right. It is an advisory right. At any rate, to this small extent the principle is conceded in the case of aliens. It is not conceded anywhere in the Bill in the case of British subjects. This is an anomaly which ought to be corrected.
I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said about the shortness of time. I do not want to make a long speech, but the more our discussions proceed the more obvious it becomes that there will be the most haphazard and chaotic series of decisions unless there is some other authority to whom an appeal can be made against decisions of immigration officers.
One of our troubles in all of these discussions is that we never have the same people on the Government Front Bench to argue with. When the Attorney-General is here, the Home Secretary is absent. When the Home Secretary is here, the Attorney-General is absent. This would not matter in the least if only they took some trouble behind the Chair or in some other place to co-ordinate their views on the Bill, but they do not. We receive different answers on quite important matters. For instance, when in an earlier debate I challenged the Attorney-General saying what an immigration officer had a right to do and suggested that the Clause as drafted——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member would do well to come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: If you will indulge me sufficiently to hear the end of my sentence, Mr. Arbuthnot, you will see the relevance of what I am saying. The point I am now on is the question of a right of appeal against a decision of an immigration officer. It is very important to know whether the immigration officer in making his decision has an unfettered discretion of his own or whether he is limited by the instructions which the Home Secretary says he will give him.

The point I am making is that, whereas the Home Secretary told me that the immigration officer would have no discretion and that his decision would have to be in accordance with the instructions the Home Secretary gave him, less than ten minutes ago the Minister of State told me how advisable it was to leave something to the discretion of the immigration officer so that the list of instructions would not run into too many volumes and he would have some hope of keeping in touch with what the Home Office desired him to do.
This is one of our difficulties, because the Committee may very well be of opinion that there ought to be a right of appeal if the decision is an arbitrary—that is to say, a discretionary—decision by the immigration officer, whereas there would be little for any appeal tribunal to do if the immigration officer's decision was circumscribed by instructions given him by the Home Office. All that the immigration officer would have to show then would be that his decision was in accordance with those instructions, whereas if he were exercising his discretion he would have to show a much more arbitrable point, namely, that his decision was reasonable in all the circumstances and within the spirit of the legislation.
Therefore, it is a great embarrassment to the Committee that we do not know at this moment whether the immigration officer is limited or unlimited, whether he has a discretion or whether he has no discretion. In any event, it would be safer for the Committe to accept the principle that there should be some kind of third party judgment, particularly as there are so many different things which the immigration officer may have to take into account, as they may conflict with one another, and as it may be a very difficult exercise of judgment to know whether he is to follow one of the instructions, whether he is to follow another of the instructions, or whether he is to do what he himself thinks right. In these circumstances, there should be some appeal.
I should have preferred a simple, direct appeal to a high court judge, appealable if necessary to the Court of Appeal. That would be much better than to set up some elaborate, special tribunal that would need to have a lot of regulations,


orders and rules, unless it is to be merely rough and ready decisions like the immigration officer's own decisions. I should prefer, therefore, an appeal to a judge of the High Court, but I would accept any kind of appeal rather than no appeal at all, and I hope that the Government will accept at least the principle of the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that there should be some appeal. I leave the form of the appeal to my legal colleagues. I would ask the Government to look again at this because my own experience of the Home Office in dealing with aliens is that the Home Office is extremely reasonable and usually very expeditious in the way it deals with them. Immigrants from the Commonwealth are in far greater numbers, and I should have thought that the Home Office for its own protection, in order not to get bogged down with a lot of questions by Members of Parliament as to why so and so has not been allowed to come in or not and as to why a certain decision has been made by an immigrant officer, would have welcomed some fairly simple but separate tribunal to which complaints of this nature could be sent.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look at this very reasonable request again, which I think is both in the interests of the immigrants and in the interests of the immigration officers, who must sometimes have very difficult decisions to make. If they felt that they ought to stand on the letter of their instructions when as human beings they would perhaps like to allow a person to come in, they would know that this person had the right of appeal to a tribunal and they could pass the responsibility on to it. The situation would then be dealt with in the human way in which a few minutes ago the Home Secretary said he wished to deal with these people. I hope, therefore, that the Attorney-General will be able to say something rather more favourable to us on this matter.

Miss Lee: If any Member of the Government Front Bench had been able to tell the Committee specifically that instructions given to the immigration officers would be definite, clear, and the

same for every person, the Government would have a case for rejecting machinery, however simple, that gave a right of appeal.
I agree that contrary replies have been given by the Government, but I do not think that any hon. Member or, for that matter, any Minister, would deny that there will be circumstances in which a Commonwealth citizen's fate will be decided by the judgment of one immigration officer. If discretion is to be exercised, there cannot possibly be any case at all against the suggestion in the Amendment that there should be a right of appeal.
The need for appeal in the case of disease, criminal record or poverty may arise from some misunderstanding or confusion, and the immigration officer may not have been properly seized of the facts, but another type of case altogether arises when the immigration officer believes that a Commonwealth citizen is a bad security risk. I agree that the appeal machinery in such a case may have to be different from that for other cases, but I believe that in all circumstances where it is a matter of discretion, it is absolutely essential that there should be a right of appeal.
We all know perfectly well that what are called security risks very often involve our whole attitude to life; issues on which we feel very passionately. As Tom Paine said, looked at from one angle a man may be regarded as a great patriot while, from another angle, he may be looked on as a scoundrel. I was very proud when, at one time, this country held high the banner of the right of asylum, but I have recently been ashamed by some of the judgments given. I will not speak at any length about them, but they have related to Portuguese friends and others. I ask the Committee to insist that where, as the Government have admitted, it will be a matter of private judgment, private caprice or the discretion of one fallible human being, some machinery should be set up to give the right of appeal.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Everyone will agree that we are dealing here with one of the most important aspects of the Bill. On any view, this is an extreme case of putting the individual at the absolute mercy of the official, without


redress and without appeal. The power that is being given to the immigration officer is a tremendous power. The immigration officer takes the decision as to whether a man can come here and make his livelihood—maybe, join his friends and family here—or whether he is to be, it may be for ever, kept out. That is to say, that man's whole future and livelihood may depend on the decision of an official who gives no reasons and who is not accountable to anyone.
We on this side, therefore, certainly support the principle of an appeal tribunal. Personally, I am rather disposed to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that it would be simpler just to have an appeal to a High Court judge, but we are not here concerned with a particular form of tribunal but with whether there should be any appeal at all against administrative discretion.
We are taking a group of Amendments together, Mr. Arbuthnot, and, if I may, I want to deal with two of them that deal not so much with the right of appeal but with the right to be heard at all. They are the Amendments standing in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends, in page 3, line 9. The first is directed in particular to the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has just referred.
Clause 2 (3, c) provides that a man may be refused admission:
… if his admission would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the interests of national security …
Even if it be thought that this is not an appropriate matter for an appeal, we are suggesting that, at any rate, a man in those circumstances has a right to be heard, and it is extremely important that he should have some indications of the reasons on which it is proposed to arrive at the decision.
We are here in the realm of security, a realm with which some of us were familiar in war time. We all know that the Secretary of State—which means, of course, an officer in his Department—must in such cases act on a report that is laid before him; a report, perhaps, from all kinds of sources. It is quite possible that the report may be misinformed. It sometimes happens that it

is wrong. It may completely misrepresent the activities of the individual concerned.
9.0 p.m.
He will have no means of putting the matter right under the procedure of the Bill because he can never know what is in the dossier or what it is that is alleged against him. That is why my hon. Friends and I propose that, in any such case where it is proposed to operate this provision and exclude the man on grounds of national security, he should be notified and the grounds specified on which the Secretary of State has decided that
… his admission … would … be contrary to the interests of national security …
Surely that is not an unreasonable demand in such a case? We are simply asking the Government to apply the ordinary concepts of natural justice; audi alterem partem—hear the other party. Surely any man is entitled to be heard in his own defence. That is why the Amendment was tabled.
I wish also to refer to the Amendment in the names of myself and several of my hon. Friends which is designed to give a man who is to be excluded from entering this country an opportunity of being heard. We propose that, in any case where an objection is taken to the decision, the man concerned shall have the opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State shall then appoint someone—not a police officer or an employee of a Government Department but an independent person—to interview the man concerned, hear what he has to say and report back to the Secretary of State.
This particular piece of machinery has most respectable antecedents, for I have lifted it direct from the legislation of a former Conservative Government. In the early months of 1939 there was a good deal of alarm in this country about the activities of various members of the Irish Republican Army. There were explosions at depots, railway stations and in other public places and the Government decided—rightly or wrongly—that they had to legislate. They also assumed at that time an arbitrary power for exclusion. They proposed to take the power, only temporarily, to exclude anyone of Irish origin or with Irish connections


and send him back to what was them the Irish Free State and to do so without and kind of judicial process. In those days many Opposition hon. Members felt that that should not be left to the arbitrary whim of a Government official, and we said that there should be some kind of appeal—just as is being said today.
The then Government did not entirely meet what we suggested. Nevertheless, they proposed the procedure which is set out in this Clause, and they went some way to meet the arguments which we were then putting forward. I believe that the Government of today should at least show themselves equally as enlightened as did that Chamberlain Government of 1939.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I shall be very interested, for I am waiting anxiously, to hear what the Attorney-General has to say about the Amendment. On Second Reading, I asked the Home Secretary whether or not there would be any right of appeal by an immigrant who had either been refused entry or had been told that his entry was subject to conditions. The Home Secretary, in his inimitable style, assured me that the matter would be carefully borne in mind, and I am now interested to see whether that process has produced any tangible results.
I consider that the immigration officer is being given a very wide discretion indeed, and that it is somewhat unfair to leave him with the completely unfettered decision as to whether or not an immigrant should be allowed to come into this country. I wish to refresh the memory of the Committee about some of the regulations which we had during the war.
It is true that the circumstances in which an alien had an order made against him under Regulation 18B of the 1939 Defence Regulations are not strictly in pari materia with the position of an immigrant wishing to enter the country today, but the provisions then give an indication of the sort of legal rights we were prepared at the height of the war to accord to persons who were aliens and suspected enemies of this country.

Mr. S. Silverman: And to British subjects, too.

Mr. Thorpe: As the hon. Member says, some were British subjects. Many were not, and it is even more remarkable, on that ground, that we should have made the arrangements we did.
I know a little about what was done. The advisory committees had as their chairmen men of long standing in the law. They were usually silks. My father was one of them. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest—he, of course, is now a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—was another. By and large, the chairmen of the committees were people of at least 15 to 20 years' standing at the Bar, and for the most part they were silks.
Pursuant to subsection (3) of Regulation 18B, the Secretary of State could set up one or more advisory committees. The purpose of the committees was to hear appeals by any person who was either dissatisfied with the making of an order against him or with any conditions relating to such order. He was able to make representations before the committee. It is a tribute to the libertarian traditions of the House that an aggrieved person was to be provided in writing with the reasons which had prompted the Secretary of State to make the order. Nat only that. Once a month the Secretary of State had to report to the House the number of representations which had been made to him by the advisory committees and the number of cases in which he had not felt able to follow the advice.
Putting it shortly, I suggest that it is an amazing tribute to the principles of natural justice that, during the height of the war, this country was prepared to go into the individual case of any person against whom an order was made under Regulation 18B. It was very remarkable that, day in and day out, the committees used to sit and hear cases at that time.
In this Bill we are not dealing with wartime conditions. We are dealing with these matters in times of peace. We are not even dealing with aliens. [Interruption.] If the Labour Front Bench will keep quiet, perhaps I shall have more success in addressing my remarks to the Attorney-General. We are dealing with citizens of the British Commonwelath who wish to come to this country, many of them seeking to do so in order to find work,


being unable to find work in their country of origin. Very often, they come from a country for which we have been responsible for 200 or 300 years. What the Government will say, if they do not accept this Amendment, is that those people shall have no right of appeal at all if they are refused entry at the gates of this country.
By the Bill and by giving this power to immigration officers we are taking powers which no other European colonial Power has sought to arrogate to itself. The Portuguese do not ask for this right to exclude, nor do the French, the Belgians or the Dutch. This is a radical departure from the colonial practice, at any rate, of European Powers. Is it unreasonable to ask the Government to accord the same legal rights in time of peace to British subjects and members of the Commonwealth as were accorded at the height of the war to persons who were aliens under orders made under 18B the Emergency regulations?

Mr. Weitzman: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment. By this Bill we are taking away the free right of entry of a British citizen into the Mother Country. In those circumstances, it surely behoves us to scrutinise the action which is taken as much as possible to see that no mistake is made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said that the instructions to immigration officers were not definite and precise and suggested that if they were definite and precise matters might be different. We know perfectly well that the immigration officer must exercise his discretion in many cases in coming to a decision. There are bound to be many differences in the various cases which come before him. Surely it is an elementary principle that justice should not only be done but should appear to be done. What, then, is the objection to an appeal tribunal of some kind? Unless the Government put forward some overriding reason which destroys the idea of a right of appeal, I cannot see that objection can be made to this suggestion.
I do not care in what way the appeal tribunal plays its part. The appeal may

be to a High Court judge or it may be in the way suggested in the Amendment which we are considering or in the way suggested by the first Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) in page 3, line 9. As I say, unless the Government put forward an overriding reason to the contrary, there should be some right of appeal.
I wish to say something in support of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich said about his second Amendment in page 3, line 9. I regard this as a serious matter. As he said, under subsection (3, c) admission may be refused to an immigrant if his admission would be
contrary to the interests of national security".
As he rightly pointed out, it is a real hardship for an individual not to know the grounds on which admission has been refused and not to be able to put forward a case to refute something which may be quite wrong, misleading and untruthful. It is, therefore, suggested by the Amendment that a person should have the right to make representations so that the decision can be reviewed by the Secretary of State and perhaps altered in some way. This is a matter of great importance, and I hope that we shall have a favourable reply from the Government to it.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the plea for some form of review of the decision of an immigration officer in cases of this kind. I should have thought that immigration officers generally would welcome a check on the correctness or otherwise of their decisions in what might well be complicated and difficult cases. I do not wish to go through all of the arguments advanced in support of some form of review of these cases by a court or tribunal. I wish to make only one additional point.
It seems to me that there is a remarkable distinction between the machinery provided for keeping a Commonwealth citizen out of this country and the machinery provided under the Bill for deporting Commonwealth citizens from this country. I can see no logical reason for that distinction.
9.15 p.m.
In Part II of the Bill, one sees that a person who is likely to become the subject matter of a recommendation for deportation is given substantial rights, particularly under Clause 8. Not only is the final decision to be made by a court, but before that decision is given, a procedure has to be followed which gives him substantial rights in relation to that matter.
If that degree of protection—which, in my view, is rightly given—is extended to a person before a court is to determine whether a deportation order is to be made in respect of him, why should there not be substantially similar rights in the case of a person who is arbitrarily—at least, on the decision of one executive officer—excluded from entry to the country? It seems to me utterly illogical that one should rightly go to the extent that we do in Part II of the Bill to protect Commonwealth citizens in respect of deportation orders but give them no similar protection concerning the decision of immigration officers.
It may be said that there could be a large number of frivolous appeals and that the whole of the machinery would be blocked. It should be relatively easy to devise a system whereby frivolous appeals could be discouraged. It might well be that a person who wished to appeal would be required to have leave to appeal. There could be an initial sifting out on the question of whether there was any point of merit to be considered by the appropriate tribunal or court.
We are taking a grave step if we leave this important decision to the immigration officer with no conceivable possibility of review. It would be far better if we provided machinery whereby there should be a safeguard against possible grave miscarriage of justice unwittingly caused by an immigration officer. One of the matters which he has to determine is whether there is reason to believe that an immigrant has been convicted in any country of any crime. There could easily he a genuine misunderstanding or mistake by an immigration officer in that regard. Is a person who is excluded on that basis to have no right to have his position reviewed? To my mind, it is very much in the interests of immigration officers that an appeal tribunal should be provided.

Sir B. Janner: Naturally, I support what has been said on the Clause. I am anxious not to keep the Committee long, but I ask the Attorney-General to realise that this is a very unusual Measure to those living in the countries concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has to take into account that people who will be affected by the Bill are men and women who hitherto have considered that they had inherent rights as British subjects to come to this country and to go when they pleased. Therefore, he should take every possible precaution to ensure that when restrictive measures are placed upon their entry, the onus of proof that they are not desirable people should be upon us and not upon them.
The Attorney-General has admitted openly that an immigration officer, subject to his being satisfied and according to his opinion that certain matters have arisen, may of his own accord tell an individual who always thought he had a right of entry, "You have no right to come here." I do not say that immigration officers are not fair. I believe they are and that in many cases they refer to the Home Office for advice. But in some cases they do not. They consider that their own ability to weigh the position is sufficient to enable them to make a decision.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I am privileged to have immigration officers in my constituency. I have watched them work. Can the hon. Member give any example where an immigration officer has turned an application down without reference to his superior or to the Home Office?

Sir B. Janner: I do not think that the Attorney-General or the Home Office would deny that in a large number of cases immigration officers, in whom they rightly have confidence, have turned away people on their own accord when they have attempted to come into the country. One knows of cases where an immigration officer has turned a person away even after he has received a visa to enter the country.
The Bill provides that an individual—I agree with the best intentions—has the power to turn away a person who hitherto has been a British citizen at his own discretion and on the basis of certain particulars provided to him. Is


it not reasonable that the person who is refused entry should have someone to turn to? If he is turned away he has to go back to the country from which he came. He cannot demand that somebody else should decide his case, no matter how decent a fellow he may be or that he knows that he has complied with the regulations. All we ask is that such a person should not be turned away without the right to tell someone, "I have been misunderstood. The matter alleged against me is not correct". As things stand he may not even know what is alleged against him. The Attorney-General ought to indicate that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ronald Bell: One has a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member's point of view, but this is a question of practicability. Has he any knowledge of other countries where such an appeal procedure from the immigration officer is allowed?

Sir B. Janner: A list has already been given in the course of the debate of countries where nothing of this nature prevails. I cannot tell the hon. Member off-hand whether there are any where it does prevail, but in view of our record in our judicial system and in the preservation of human rights, we should not have to turn for examples to other countries. If anything, we should lead other countries in these matters as we have done in the past.

Mr. S. Silverman: I may be mistaken, but I think that in the United States, where sometimes there is a right to withdraw a United States citizen's passport, there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Sir B. Janner: Does anyone imagine that when the Bill becomes an Act persons will not be told, in the countries affected, that certain restrictions have been put on immigration into this country? Does anyone believe that a man setting out thousands of miles to this country will not be told about these things and about the grounds on which he may be refused admission? Surely the Secretary of State will ask authorities of these countries what they intend to do about these provisions. I am certain that they will make available full explanations of the Bill. If a man,

knowing what the position is, comes here, do not the Government think, prima facie at least, that that man believes he is entitled to come into this country in spite of the restrictions?
Nevertheless, the Government say that the immigration officer can tell a man who has come all that way, "You will not be admitted." Such cases may be exceptional, but the Government should not deny the persons involved the right of appeal to some tribunal on the ground that "I have not been justly dealt with and I demand an inquiry so that I may prove my case." In present conditions, when we are all trying to establish human rights, it is a gross attack on the rights of the individual not to be allowed the right to have his case properly heard.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) chided me for having sat for so long without saying anything about the Amendment. Having listened to so many speeches it is right that I should now reply, particularly as other Amendments fall for consideration on this Clause in the time left for its disposal.
I recognise that the question raised by the Amendment is of major importance. I can say at once that it is one to which serious consideration was given before the Bill was ever printed. In approaching this question, I want first to put on one side one or two matters, raised during the debate, which are not really relevant to what we are considering. We are concerned here with an appeal from a decision of an immigration officer made at the port of entry about someone seeking to enter the country. That is very different from a decision made about a person who is already within the country.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) treated us to an interesting disquisition, reminiscent as it was, on Regulation 18B. There, of course, we had machinery for dealing with aliens in war time. In passing, may I say, in protection of the Labour Front Bench and of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that I do not think the hon. Gentleman was fair in reproving that Front Bench for talking, because I thought that they were singularly quiet. Despite his fears, I could hear every word he said, and I understood him to


emphasise what I already knew—that the Bill deals with Commonwealth citizens. We must put on one side the 18B cases and indeed the cases referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) when he spoke of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939. That, again, was dealing with questions which fell to be decided in relation to persons already in this country, and there is no parallel or lesson to be drawn from that in relation to what could happen or what should be done in connection with persons seeking to enter the country.
9.30 p.m.
The real question is whether there should be an appeal from the decision of an immigration officer to an independent tribunal. There are differences among the various Amendments but, apart from those in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, they all raise the question of whether there should be an appeal to an independent tribunal or court. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says, as his Amendment does, that the appeal should go straight to the judges, with a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. I am sure that that is the question with which the Committee would like me to deal instead of spending time dissecting the differences among the Amendments.

Mr. Ede: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: I am glad to have the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) with me on this occasion.
This is a question of principle which to any lawyer, on whichever side of the Committee he sits, has considerable attractions, for more than one reason but primarily because our approach to all questions of the exercise of judgment is that of considering the ventilation of the issues before some kind of independent tribunal. I spent much time considering this, but I do not think that that is a practical proposal in this instance.
There are two appellate channels in this country and they do not blend. One is the appeal machinery to a tribunal, or court and the other is the appeal machinery to the House of Commons and the Ministers who are

responsible. The present procedure for dealing with aliens entering the country—I am not talking about those who are resident—is that the immigration officer makes the decision. In case of doubt or difficulty, he no doubt refers it to his superiors, and they in turn can quickly refer it to the Home Office and, believe it or not, I am reliably assured by my right hon. Friends that a very prompt answer to these inquiries is given.
Using that channel of referring to higher authority if there is a case of doubt and difficulty, it is astonishing how speedily the matter is ventilated and raised in the House of Commons with the Home Secretary, who answers at this Box. That is one system and the question is not whether the decision should be left just to the immigration officer without any possibility of review, but whether this is the best system to be adopted for use in this problem.
All lawyers will agree that one thing is inevitable. It is that an appellate system to a tribunal is bound to involve delay. After all, anyone who is refused admission will have nothing to lose by seeking to appeal one way or the other. If there is an appellate system, delay is bound to occur. In many cases admission may be refused not on account of any personal idiosyncrasies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time.
That may well be the case, and if so, there is no question at issue except what are the numbers? Having considered this very carefully, inclined as I was originally to the view that we should have some system of appeals, which appeals to lawyers, bearing in mind the delays which would be involved and the practical difficulties that would follow on the delays—I will enlarge on that in a moment—I believe that it is better not to design machinery such as has been suggested, but to leave it as it is left in the case of aliens, for matters to be raised in the House of Commons.

Mr. S. Silverman: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with this, I am sure he realises the fundamental difference between the two processes he described. In the one case there is an individual hearing before a


tribunal which is independent—thirdparty judgment in the true sense. The procedure which he prefers cannot begin to be set in motion unless some Member of the House of Commons happens to hear about it and raises it, and when it is raised it is done so in an atmosphere and on a footing where even the fate of the Government may be involved, and the decision is not according to the merits of the individual case, but according to the interests of the Government or the Opposition as the case may be.

The Attorney-General: I agree that there is something in which the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not go the whole way with him, for this reason. The approach I put is the approach which operates now. Immigration officers will not be prejudiced against Commonwealth citizens who seek to enter this country.

Sir Leslie Plummer: How do we know?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the earlier debate, he would have heard it made clear that members of the Commonwealth will be welcomed as visitors to this country.
The purpose of the Bill is to have some control over immigration. The question at issue is the choice of method by which a decision of an immigration officer can best be reviewed. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne thinks, and I have no doubt many hon. Members agree with him, that the best way of doing it is to have a tribunal of the kind he advocates, or access to the courts. I think that many others will think that the best way is by the application of the existing system which applies in relation to entry by aliens. I do not go with the hon. Gentleman in saying that no one can raise it; that it cannot be raised with the Home Office unless it is brought to the notice of some hon. Member, because these Commonwealth citizens have their representatives in this country.
May I come to what I think is an important factor in this, and that is the practical difficulty in relation to an appeal. An appeal must inevitably take some time to come on. One would hope that if we had this system the delay

would not be very long, but the percentage of appeals from those who were refused admission would be likely to be large because they would have nothing to lose. One thing that is surely out of the question is detention at the ports of entry of the persons who are seeking entry and are refused it pending the hearing of the appeal. The detention rooms there are small and quite unsuitable for lengthy detention. Police cells are no better, and to use our overcrowded prisons for this purpose is un thinkable. There would be great pressure to allow the would-be immigrant to proceed to his intended destination and be at liberty pending the outcome of his appeal.
The choice lies between the appellate tribunal and what can be a very prompt reference to the Home Secretary and, as a last resort, a very prompt raising of the matter in the House. At any rate there can be a reference to the Home Secretary, either by the immigrant or by the immigration officer, or his superiors in oases of difficulty, and the machinery can work very quickly indeed. I think that it will prove far more satisfactory than the appellate tribunal machinery, Which must involve detention of the would-be immigrant at some place in this country, pending the hearing of his appeal. I do not think that that is desirable, and it is on that ground that I come down in favour of applying the procedure which is applied to the entry of aliens, which I understand has worked satisfactorily so far and Which is quite distinct from the procedure for dealing with those who are resident in the country.
I do not want to speak any longer on this matter. I can assure the Committee that we have given it the most careful consideration. The case for the tribunal has been excellently put. The case for the non-tribunal may not have been put so well, but there is force and substance in it. If we are to have a system of reference to an independent person, such as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich we again have delay, coupled with detention which is the one thing that must be avoided.

Mr. George Brown: One of our objections to the guillotine procedure is that we are all conscious of the


fact that we are working against time and cannot give to issues of tremendous importance the attention that they deserve. Every hon. Member who has spoken tonight on an issue of tremendous importance to the libently of the individual has said that he is conscious that he must not speak for very long. Since we shall have coming before us issues which concern students, the health of immigrants, the security of the State, and control over numbers, and since all these matters have to be dealt with before we reach the next stage of the Guillotine, we must all hurry on.
The Attorney-General is very lucky that we are hurrying on. I have never heard anybody put a case for denying the individual the protection that we all thought he had under our system as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put it. As I understood him, he said that if we give individuals the right to appeal, so many will do so that we shall not be able to deal with them administratively, and that it is far better to deny them the right of appeal. I could not see anything else in his argument.
He said that the detention rooms at the points of entry are so small that we could not handle detained immigrants. We can always build bigger detention rooms. Surely we can do something to deal with the problem. Does the Attorney-General, in his legal capacity, really believe that the right answer, in relation to the right of a man to be properly judged, is to ask whether there is anywhere to put him while he is waiting to be judged? Does the Attorney-General mean that? I know that he said it, but I cannot believe that he meant it.
At the end of his speech he said that, as against the appellate system, he preferred to rely upon the right of the immigration officer or of the immigrant to appeal to the Home Secretary.
Where is the right of an immigrant to appeal to the Home Secretary? Where does the immigrant get that right of appeal? I take it that the Attorney-General is listening to me. In subsection (2) of this Clause the right goes with the immigration officer. It is he who decides. I repeat, where does the immigrant get the right to appeal to the Home Secretary? Since the detention

rooms are so small, where does he stay while he is exercising that right? With very great respect, may I say that the Attorney-General was saying something which is not provided for in the Bill. He just introduced a sentence of his own.
9.45 p.m.
The immigrant has no right of appeal, and it is a right of appeal that we are here seeking to introduce. It is a right of appeal that the Attorney-General is denying. Why, therefore, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduce something which he must know to be quite untrue, and outwith the Bill and the position of the immigrant? If one can be the Attorney-General of this great country on the basis of inventing law like that, when we are making law, there ought to be a very great future for some of us. One could write it as one goes along.
There is no right of appeal for the immigrant to the Home Secretary. The Attorney-General knows it and does not need me to point it out to him. The purpose of these Amendments is to provide some form of appeal. Although we have so little time to discuss this, everyone wishes to hurry on—that is a by-product of the imposition of the guillotine Motion on this important issue—I hope that some hon. Members opposite will feel rather shocked that people are to be turned away by immigration officers without it being possible to refer the matter to anyone else. An immigration officer may refer it, but will he? Do they? The answer is that they do not and they will not. This will be done purely as an administrative operation and there will be no appeal to anybody at all.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Having been an Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, may I assure the right hon. Gentleman that an Under-Secretary of State may expect a telephone call at almost any hour of the day or night asking for advice on these matters?

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend also remember that the procedure in the case of aliens arises directly from the fact that under the law relating to aliens an immigration officer, as agent


of the Home Secretary, exercises the Home Secretary's discretion? That is not the case under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Brown: I listened to the Attorney-General trying to deal with the question of 18B internees. I have never heard anyone get an argument so wrong. The point of my hon, Friends was that if we provided for an appeal in the 18B cases, in those circumstances for such people at that time, what case is there for not making a similar provision for those people who are our fellow-citizens, in these circumstances at this time? If we could provide it for people detained under 18B, people considered to be of such a kind and with such an outlook that we could not allow them to be free, at a time of grave danger to the nation, what case is there for not giving a right of appeal to our fellow Commonwealth citizens at a time when we are not in danger and they are not threatening us with danger?
I say again to the Attorney-General, with respect, what case is there? The right hon. and learned Gentleman completely misconceived the point which was being put to him. We provided such a right in the case of the 18B cases, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is refusing to provide it now. All the pettifogging, little administrative points upon which he has relied, such as the size of the detention rooms, must have applied on that earlier occasion. But we did it as a matter of principle then, because we thought that the reputation of our country required us to do so. To that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given no answer at all.
Another thing he said which staggered me, as I am not a lawyer, was that he thought it was much better to get a prompt answer from the administrative authority than to have an appellate system. I repeat that I am not a lawyer. This was a distinguished lawyer speaking. I repeat his proposition that it is much better to have a prompt answer given by the administrative authority than to have an appellate system. He went on to say that if we had an appellate system delays would be bound to occur. He must be the first distinguished lawyer charged with defending our legal system to advance the principle that if

we have an appellate system we shall have delays and it is better to have simple decisions made by administrative authority.
I can think of a number of systems of government which will be grateful to the Attorney-General for those words. This, I should think, would appear very quickly in any Communist or fascist book about the kind of system to have.

Mr. S. Silverman: Especially in Angola.

Mr. Brown: In Angola. I presume that the Attorney-General meant it. I presume that he had considered it. He told us that he had spent many days considering this. He read from an obviously well prepared manuscript. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I must say that we would never have expected to have heard from the Attorney-General, whoever he was, at any time that it was better to have a prompt administrative decision than to run the risk of delay by having an appellate system.
Like everyone else in the Committee, I must not go on for too long. Therefore, the issue is not examined. Therefore, there is no contribution from hon. Members opposite. Therefore, we are making a mockery of the whole business of democratic decision and discussion. Here we are dealing with the right of men and women not to be finally judged unless they have been heard. We have had a legal argument from the Attorney-General which no lawyer opposite would defend. We cannot go on with the argument because there are other things we wish to discuss. I share the disgust and unhappiness which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and others feel about that argument. There is not one of them who in their ordinary way of business would defend the case put by the Attorney-General.
It is a shameful thing that Commonwealth fellow citizens should suffer for a legal dictum offered here which could not stand up by reference to anything this country has done in the proud centuries that lie behind us. We have always said that the right of the individual is more important than the convenience of the administrative authority. Tonight the


Attorney-General has reversed that. He has said that the convenience of the Executive stands out and the rights of the individual must be subservient to it. This is a very sad night for this House and for the country. I hope that some hon. Members opposite will have the grace to vote with us on this Amendment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I wonder if at this eleventh hour the Attorney-General can be persuaded to change his mind. This is an outrageous refusal of an elementary right. This Bill is a mean Bill in spirit, in mind and in heart. The Amendment affords a chance to put an element of justice into it. The learned Attorney-General has preferred on this occasion to rely upon the procedure of a chance reference to the House of Commons, through channels which are by no means clear, of a complaint by a rejected immigrant. The procedure of review has now become a part of the whole pattern of our administration of justice. Almost every encroachment of a property right gives rise to a right of appeal to some tribunal. The principle justifying the procedure is clear. It is because of the possibility of error, the possibility of human fallibility which arises in the case of every person exercising authority, be it administrative or otherwise.
By the Bill we are depriving the citizens of the Commonwealth of a right of entry to this country which they have enjoyed for centuries. It has shocked me to see the casual way in which the

learned Attorney-General has so willingly cast aside this right which his forebears have defended at the Dispatch Box and in the courts through the centuries. This is a chance to give back an elementary right of appeal. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the last moments of this debate to do honour to his office and its traditions and to do something about these reasonable Amendments.

Mr. Wade: I endorse that plea. I think I can state my argument in two or three sentences. The Attorney-General has submitted to the Committee that we have to make a choice between an administrative decision and an appeal to a tribunal. In practice that is not so. To use the words contained in the Amendment to page 3, line 44:
Where any person is dissatisfied with any decision of the immigration officer
the immigration officer will in the ordinary case no doubt refer the matter to the Home Office. Only in the last resort, when the Home Office decision is unfavourable and the immigrant feels that he has been unjustly or unfairly treated or that there has been a mistake, will he wish to appeal to an independent tribunal. Our plea is that there should be some method of appealing in the last resort.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 242.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Ainsley, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Halt, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deer, George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Awbery, Stan
Delargy, Hugh
Hannan, William


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Dempsey, James
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Beaney, Alan
Diamond, John
Hayman, F. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dodds, Norman
Healey, Denis


Bence, Cyril
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edelman, Maurice
Herbison, Mitt Margaret


Benson, Sir George
Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Blyton, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hilton, A. V.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Evans, Albert
Holman, Percy


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fernyhough, E.
Holt, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Finch, Harold
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Boyden, James
Fletcher, Eric
Hoy, James H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forman, J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hunter, A. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Cattle, Mrs. Barbara
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Chapman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Cliffe, Michael
Gourlay, Harry
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, Charles
Janner, Sir Barnett


Darling, George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jeger, George


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)




Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Owen, Will
Steele, Thomas


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, W. E.
Stonehouse, John


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pargiter, G. A.
Stones, William


Kettey, Diehard
Parker, John
Swingler, Stephen


Kenyon, Clifford
Pavitt, Laurence
Symonds, J. B.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


King, Dr. Horace
Peart, Frederick
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Prentice, R. E.
Timmons, John


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Wade, Donald


MacColl, James
Randall, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin


McInnes, James
Rankin, John
Warbey, William


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Redhead, E. C.
Watkins, Tudor


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


Manuel, A. C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mapp, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Mason, Roy
Rose, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Edward
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Milne, Edward
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mitchison, G. R.
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Monslow, Walter
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Morris, John
Small, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moyle, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woof, Robert


Neal, Harold
Snow, Julian
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Sorernsen, R. W.



Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Aitken, W. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, Sir Oliver
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Allason, James
Crowder, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Curran, Charles
Hobson, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Dance, James
Hocking, Philip N.


Barlow, Sir John
Deedes, W. F.
Holland, Philip


Barter, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hollingworth, John


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hopkins, Alan


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Doughty, Charles
Hornby, R. P.


Bell, Donald
Dray son, G. B.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Berkeley, Humphry
du Cann, Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Duncan, Sir James
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bingham, R. M.
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Errington, Sir Eric
James, David


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Black, Sir Cyril
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bossom, Clive
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Box, Donald
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Freeth, Denzil
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Braine, Bernard
Gammans, Lady
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Brewis, John
Gardner, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gibson-Watt, David
Kirk, Peter


Brooman-White, R.
Gilmour, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Leavey, J. A.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Godber, J. B.
Leburn, Gilmour


Buck, Antony
Goodhart, Philip
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Billiard, Denys
Goodhew, Victor
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gough, Frederick
Litchfield, Capt. John


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Longbottom, Charles


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Loveys, Walter H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Green, Alan
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Gresham Cooke, R.
MacArthur, Ian


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
McLaren, Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Cleaver, Leonard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Collard, Richard
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maginnis, John E.


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Corfield, F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas


Costain, A. P.
Hendry, Forbes
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Coulson, Michael
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hiley, Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.







Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Rees, Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tiley, Arhur (Bradford, W.)


Morgan, William
Renton, David
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Nabarro, Gerald
Roots, William
Turner, Colin


Neave, Airey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Russell, Ronald
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Sharples, Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Shaw, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Shepherd, William
Vickers, Miss Joan


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Walder, David


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wall, Patrick


Partridge, E.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Dame Irene


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Webster, David


Peel, John
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival, Ian
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pitt, Miss Edith
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wise, A. R.


Pott, Percivall
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Powell, Rt Hon. J. Enoch
Talbot, John E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, C. M.


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Woollam, John


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Teeling, Sir William
Worsley, Marcus


Pym, Francis
Temple, John M.



Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ramsden, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mr. Whitelaw and


Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Michael Hamilton.

The Chairman: The next Amendment selected is that in page 2, line 26, leave out from "there" to "or" in line 30. With it, may be taken the Amendment in page 2, line 27, after "issued", insert "to him"; that in line 30, after "Ireland", insert:
or by the High Commissioner in any part of the Commonwealth
and that in line 30, at end insert:
(b) that employment has been offered to him in the United Kingdom and that he intends to take up such employment; or.
but those Amendments have not been selected for a Division.

Mr. Fletcher: At this time in the evening, Sir William, I do not propose to move any of those Amendments, important as they are, as the Guillotine will fall shortly and we want to start, at any rate, the important discussion on the admission of students. We, therefore, propose not to move those Amendments and to leave discussion of them to the Report stage.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at end to insert:
(b) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of attending a course of study at any university, college, school or other institution in the United Kingdom, being a course which will occupy the whole or a substantial part of his time; or.
In view of the hour I shall move this Amendment briefly, although it is important. This is the second of the two

main Government Amendments which specify additional categories who may be assured of admission to this country.

The Chairman: It will be in order for hon. Members also to discuss, although they have not been selected for Division, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), in page 2, line 24, at end insert:
(a) that he is a bona fide student as defined in section twenty-one of this Act; or.
the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in page 2, line 34, at end insert:
or
(c) that he is a bona fide student
the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick, in Clause 21, page 14, line 4, at end insert:
a bona fide student" includes any person who has been admitted to any course of study at any university, technical college, polytechnic or education establishment supported in whole or in part by Her Majesty's Government or any local authority or who genuinely intends to enroll for a course of study either whole-time or part-time at any such university, technical college or institution or who intends to take a correspondence course for an examination at any educational institution recognised as such by the Minister of Education.
and the new Clause—Admission of students—in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick.

Mr. Butler: I was saying that this Amendment was supplementary to another Government Amendment concerning certain categories which I moved earlier in the day relating to wives and children of returning residents. This Amendment is important and concerns the situation of students. The Bill as drafted left the question of students to be determined by administrative instructions and the Amendment gives effect to what has been the intention of the Government.
The drafting, however, has not been easy and it will be necessary for the details to be set out in the administrative instructions to immigration officers which, as I said earlier, will be published before the Report stage. I will take into account any points made on this when drafting the final instructions to the immigration officers.
The principle to which we wish to give expression in the Amendment and also in the detailed instructions to immigration officers is that no Commonwealth citizen should be hindered from coming to this country for the purpose of a genuine course of study. We also consider that if study is the student's main concern he should not be required to get and employment voucher, even if he needs to spend part if his time working—and that is a concession we wish to make.
We wish to welcome students from all parts of the Commonwealth and we do not wish the Bill to place any restrictions on such people. At the same time, we cannot allow any exception for genuine students to be used by those coming to this country if they are coming here only to obtain employment when, of course, they should come under the voucher system. Hence it is not enough that immigrants should possess the general desire to study. There must be a specific intention of them taking a definite course of study. It is not enough for them to say that they intend to study on their own. A student must, in coming here, have a course of study at an institution.
It is not enough for a student to say that he will take evening classes for a few hours a week or undertake a correspondence course. He must devote a substantial part of his time to study.

Thus the Amendment includes the phrase
… a substantial part of his time …
The immigration officer will be told in the first instance that the intending student should propose to devote, say, fifteen hours a week, to study. Clearly the officer must sometimes be unable to satisfy himself, on the information available to him, as to the precise amount of time the students will devote to study and he will have the discretion—even if there is doubt about the exact time—to admit the individual provided that he is satisfied that study is the basic purpose for which the student is coming to this country.
Therefore, there will be a liberal instruction to the immigration officer to give the benefit of the doubt to the student provided he is satisfied that the study is genuine. That is why I read those words, because we propose to use words of that sort in the instructions to immigration officers. We must retain a certain amount of flexibility in dealing with questions of students.
10.15 p.m.
We intend to make arrangements by which people who wish to come here for study but who are not sure that they can demonstrate this to the immigration officer at the port of entry will be able to apply beforehand for an entry certificate or visa certificate. I am glad to fit this statement in before we close tonight because I do not think that we shall reach the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and his hon. Friends, to add a new Schedule, namely:

IMMIGRATION CERTIFICATES

1. An immigration certificate may be issued to any Commonwealth citizen resident in any country within the Commonwealth—

(1) in the case of a country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of the British Nationality Act, 1948, by the High Commissioner in that country for Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, or
(2) in the case of any other country by a person designnated by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
2. An immigration certificate shall certify that the person to whom it refers is a person described in a current voucher issued under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act or is otherwise qualified to be admitted into the United Kingdom and shall set out any conditions subject to which the person should be admitted.


3. A certificate shall be valid until it is cancelled by a notice in writing delivered to the person to whom it refers before he leaves the country in which it was issued:

Provided that if it appears to the Secretary of State that it has been obtained by misrepresentation it shall be deemed to be cancelled.

The Government intend to accept the spirit of that Amendment. It will not be necessary to put it in the Bill. It can be done by administrative means. Our contacts with countries overseas have shown that they would welcome it. I believe that, when we come to a later stage of the Bill, it will be possible to discuss the matter and do justice to the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Widnes.

The great advantage of the visa certificate is that a student will be able to obtain a certificate before leaving home. This will apply also to other types of intending traveller, and it will mean that their journeys will not be made in vain but they will know before they come here that they can get in. This is a constructive idea and the Government have been glad to consider it.

I wanted to mention it in relation to students particularly. An intending student, if he is in doubt about whether he will be acceptable after travelling here, will be able to obtain a certificate before leaving his own country. He will not come here "on spec", so to speak, but will be able to come and be certain that he will be accepted.

I have nothing further to add now on the Amendment with regard to students which I have moved. I wish to give time for comments to be made. I undertake again that we shall publish the draft instructions to immigration officers before the Report stage, and it will then honestly be seen that it will be very easy for anyone with a genuine course of study in mind to be accepted in this country. For the ones who are in doubt, a visa certificate will be obtainable in their country of origin before they leave for this country so that they may be certain of getting in.

Mr. Thorpe: If it is to be possible for a would-be student to obtain a visa in his country of origin, are we to take it that that principle of visa issue in the country of origin is to apply to students

only or is now to be extended to other persons also who seek employment?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; our idea is that it should be extended to other persons as well, to answer the question, "Is your journey really necessary?", so to speak. It will be very much easier for the intending immigrant to have this possibility. I have mentioned it on this Amendment because the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Widnes will not be reached this evening.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "a substantial."
In spite of the sweetener which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to pass to me, I do not wish to be diverted from a consideration of this important education proposal into a discussion on the later Amendment to which he referred. One accepts and welcomes the Amendment he has moved for what it is worth. I can only express my astonishment that it is possible for the Government to produce and put in print a Bill containing no reference whatever to one of the most important contributions made by this country to the Commonwealth.
The Bill bears on its back the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who is an architect of our education system and the name of the Leader of the House who is more intimately in touch with the new Commonwealth than, I suppose, anyone else on the Government side of the Committee. It is amazing that these two right hon. Gentlemen should have allowed the Bill completely to omit any reference to the position of students. Our only hope of preserving these countries for Western civilisation is that their citizens should be able to come here and absorb the ideas and thinking of this country. They depend upon this country for their education, for their technical knowledge, and so on. I have no time to develop the matter now. I can only say that I am astonished that we should have this strange repentance at the last moment.
On the details, I commend to the Government for consideration the new Clause providing for an advisory council to be


established. This, I think, is the difficulty. The Home Office is to administer this business of letting people in and deciding whether they are bona fide students and whether they will have a reasonable education, and so on. We cannot expect an immigration officer sitting in a port, dealing with these things quickly, to understand the complicated problems of education, the contribution which this country can make to education, what facilities for it exist in other countries, and so on. It is essential that there should be a body of people supplying education in this country who know the needs of the Commonwealth and who can advise the right hon. Gentleman on what contribution can be made in education, for what kind of students places can be found and what places they should be found. I have not time to develop that point, but I ask the Government to brood on it between now and later stages of the Bill.
The other point which I wish to raise is on the Amendment in line 3 to leave out "a substantial". The purpose of it is to question the limits on people who come in for whole-time education, or more or less whole-time education, which we have had defined for the first time as fifteen hours. Fifteen hours does not sound a lot, but in fact it is a great deal of education when one tries to absorb it and to do a job at the same time. I wish particularly to emphasise that it would be a grave error to exclude from this country people who come here for part-time education and keep themselves by doing a job. It is very tidy and easy to have properly accredited full-time students approved by their own country and coming here with their country's blessing. It is administratively tidy and the sort of thing which may well please some Commonwealth Governments. But the kind of person we want to encourage is the one who has the "guts" to come here and say, "I have not the approval of my Government, but I have confidence in my ability to fight my way to the top, and I want to work and earn my living and educate myself". That kind of spirit which we have welcomed in this country and which has produced some of the finest people that we have in this country is the spirit

that we wish to see encouraged in the Commonwealth.
I am therefore scared of something which will simply allow a smooth passage for the person who is officially accredited but which will not give the opportunity to what I might term the unofficial person to come over here.

Mr. Chapman: This is a rather crucial point. I understand that one-third of the Commonwealth students in our technical colleges are here to study for the G.C.E. Can my hon. Friend tell us whether many people will be excluded because they will not be having fifteen hours instruction for the G.C.E. in technical colleges? If so, it will be an enormous blow to students from the Commonwealth who come here to study for the G.C.E.

Mr. MacColl: I shall be happy to answer my hon. Friend as long as he does not go for me in the Lobby afterwards for not allowing him to take part in the debate before the Guillotine fell. There are many cases of people who have not the requisite paper qualifications but have come here with the intention of getting them. They should be encouraged. People who can absorb a technical or scientific training are required in the new Commonwealth, and everything should be done to encourage them.
I should like to make a quotation from a publication which I have never quoted before and which I may never quote again. It is East Africa and Rhodesia of 14th December, 1961. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is more likely to be favourably referred to in it than I am, but I should like to quote something in the gossip column which I came across casually. It is stated:
An African from Uganda, Mr. J. C. Muwonge-Mukasa, who had been employed as a salesman in the Kampala office of A. Baumann &amp; Co., Ltd. has passed the qualifying examination of the Institute of Marketing and Sales Management. He came to London two years ago, and has since worked as a cashier, studying in his spare time. He has had no financial assistance by scholarship or otherwise, and in June next hopes to sit his final examination. He is thought to be the first African from East or Central Africa to take this course of study.


That story is a fine and creditable one. It concerns the kind of man whom we should encourage. Therefore, I urge upon the Government the importance of not squeezing out that kind of initiative and desire to stand on one's own feet which, I should have thought, the party opposite would feel anxious to preserve.

Mr. Fletcher: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I am glad that before the Guillotine falls, there has just been time to deal with this important subject. As my hon. Friend has said, it is monstrous that when the Bill was introduced there was no protection whatever for those who wanted to come over from the Commonwealth for purposes of study. It is only as a result of the protests made by hon. Members on this side during Second Reading that the Government have now belatedly put down their Amendment. We are grateful for it as it goes but, as my hon. Friend has said, it does not go nearly far enough.
I have before me a cutting from the Observer of recent date under the caption
Immigration Bill will penalise technical students most.
I do not think that before putting his Amendment in its limited form on the Order Paper, the Home Secretary consulted those who are most familiar with the needs and requirements of Commonwealth students. Had he consulted any of the heads of the London colleges of further education, he would have discovered that a great many Commonwealth students come over here expressly for the purpose of combining an occupation which gives them remuneration with devoting their spare time to part-time study. They cannot always attend a regular course. Sometimes they have to take correspondence courses.
Does the Home Secretary know, for example, that at Kennington College of Commerce, there are about 1,000, or about half the total, Commonwealth students? Does he know that none of them enrols for courses before reaching this country and that very few have either jobs of the sort that can be

arranged in advance or sufficient private means on which to live? Does the Home Secretary know that for years a large number of Nigerians have been coming here? They do not arrange their course of study before they come, but when they come they find places and suitable courses. They make do with a patchwork of correspondence courses and part-time study, meantime taking casual jobs until they are able to pay for a more regular and longer period of full-time study.
The Home Secretary would be the first to agree that students ought not to be penalised because they are poor. There ought not to be provision which merely enables those students to come who can afford full-time education. We want to encourage students like those who have been coming here who manage to combine the earning of a livelihood with devoting their spare time to profitable and useful study in the sciences or in technology in one form or another, because they are the kind of individuals we want to encourage.
The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment to the proposed Amendment is to ensure that those students will not be discouraged by the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will accept our Amendment. He would be doing a disservice to the Commonwealth and to students throughout the Commonwealth if it is rejected. It is monstrous that we do not have time to debate it at greater length. As it is, the Guillotine will fall on a large number of other vitally important Amendments that we want to put forward, but this one is illustrative of them all. It is only as a result of constant pressure from this side that we are able to introduce some sort of reasonable, practical Amendments to the Bill. We protest at the fact that under the Guillotine we shall be deprived of the opportunity of putting forward a large number of other Amendments of vital importance to the Commonwealth and to students. We have no opportunity of dealing with all the questions of health——

It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the words "a substantial" stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 170.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gilmour, Sir John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Aitken, W. T.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Gerald


Allason, James
Godber, J. B.
Neave, Airey


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Goodhart, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Barlow, Sir John
Cough, Frederick
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Barter, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Batsford, Brian
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Green, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bingham, R. M.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Partridge, E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bossom, Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hay, John
Pitt, Percivall


Box, Donald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hendry, Forbes
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Prior, J. M. L.


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho


Brewis, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pym, Francis


Brooman-White, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hobson, John
Ramsden, James


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hocking, Philip N.
Rawlinson, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Buck, Antony
Hollingworth, John
Rees, Hugh


Bullard, Denys
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hopkins, Alan
Renton, David


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Cary, Sir Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Ronald


Chataway, Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jackson, John
Shaw, M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
James, David
Shepherd, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Collard, Richard
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Coulson, Michael
Kershaw, Anthony
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kirk, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Timothy
Storey, Sir Samuel


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crowder, F. P.
Leburn, Gilmour
Talbot, John E.


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


de Ferranti, Basil
Longbottom, Charles
Teeling, Sir William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliot, Capt' Walter (Carshalton)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tiley, Arhur (Bradford, W.)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Emery, Peter
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Turner, Colin


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finlay, Graeme
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Marshall, Douglas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Freeth, Denzil
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mills, Stratton
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Gammans, Lady
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David


Gardner, Edward
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker, Peter


Gibson Watt, David
Morgan, William
Wall, Patrick




Ward, Dame Irene
Wise, A. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Webster, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard



Whitelaw, William
Woodhouse, C. M,
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Peel and


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woollam, John
Mr. Michael Hamilton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J,
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Josph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Snow, Julian


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Danes, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Stones, William


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Delargy, Hugh
King, Dr. Horace
Swingler, Stephen


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dodds, Norman
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Neas (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacColl, James
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
McInnes, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernynough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, A. C.
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J.J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Ha[...]ton)
Milne, Edward
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moody, A. S.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas



Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Owen, Will
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Sydney Irving.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.

Proposed words there inserted.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'clock, including the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 2.

Amendments made: In page 2, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert:
and the power to admit subject to conditions under this section shall not be exercised in the case of any person who satisfies such an officer of the matters described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

In page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 39 and insert:
Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall prevent an immigration officer from refusing admission into the United Kingdom".

In page 3, line 7, leave out from "security" to end of line 9 and add:
(3A) Nothing in this section shall prevent United Kingdom at any time when a condition an immigration officer from refusing admission into the United Kingdom in the case of any person in respect of whom a deportation order under Part II of this Act is in force.
(3B) In this section "child" includes a step amended, child and an adopted child and, in relation to the mother, an illegitimate child; and for the purposes of this section a person shall be

deemed not to be ordinarily resident in the United kingdom at any time when a condition restricting the period for which he may remain there is in force under this section, whether that period has expired or not.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 170.

Clause 3.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION.)

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 168.

Division No. 67]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin


Allason, James
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Freeth, Denzil
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bartow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
McMaster, Stanley R.


Barter, John
Gardner, Edward
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Biffen, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, J. B.
Marshall, Douglas


Bingham, Rt. M.
Goodhart, Philip
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Bishop, F. P.
Gough, Frederick
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bossom, Clive
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Millis, Stratton


Bourne-Arton, A.
Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Box, Donald
Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Garden, Harold
Morgan, William


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nabarro, Gerald


Brewis, John
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Neave, Airey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brooman-White, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hastings, Stephen
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bryan, Paul
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Buck, Antony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bullard, Denys
Hendry, Forbes
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bullus, Wing commander Eric
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hiley, Joseph
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peel, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Hobson, John
Percival, Ian


Chataway, Christopher
Hocking, Philip N.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Pitt, Miss Edith


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hollingworth, John
Pott, Percivall


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hope. Rt. Hon. Lord John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cleaver, Leonard
Hopkins, Alan
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cole, Norman
Hornby, R. P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Collard, Richard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cooke, Robert
Hughes-Young, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pym, Francis


Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, James


Coulson, Michael
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jackson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Critchley, Julian
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton, David


Curran, Charles
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Currie, G. B. H.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Dance, James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roots, William


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


de Ferranti, Basil
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Ronald


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Doughty, Charles
Leavey, J. A.
Shaw, M.


Drayton, G. B.
Leburn, Gilmour
Shepherd, William


du Cann, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Emery, Peter
Longbottom, Charles
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, Stephen
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)




Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Talbot, John E.
Turner, Colin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tapsell, Peter
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wise, A. R.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
van Straubenzee, w. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Teeling, Sir William
Vickers, Miss Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, w.)
Woollam, John


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Worsley, Marcus


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Walder, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker, Peter



Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Webster, David





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics.S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Snow, Julian


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Stones, William


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Delargy, Hugh
King, Dr. Horace
Swingler, Stephen


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dodds, Norman
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nese (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacColl, James
Wade, Donald


Evans, Albert
McInnes, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, A. C.
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moody, A. S.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gourlay, Harry
Neat, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas



Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Owen, Will
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Sydney Irving.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Aitken, W. T.
Gilmour, Sir John
Morgan, William


Allason, James
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Godber, J. B.
Nabarro, Gerald


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhew, Victor
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Barter, John
Gough, Frederick
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Berkeley, Humphry
Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biffen, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bingham, R. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Clive
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peel, John


Bourne-Arson, A.
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Box, Donald
Hay, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitt, Miss Edith


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall


Braine, Bernard
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooman-White, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hobson, John
Pym, Francis


Bryan, Paul
Hocking, Philip N.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, James


Bullard, Denys
Hollingworth, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hops, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Butter, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, R. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Renton, David


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Ronald


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmith, W.)
Jackson, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cleaver, Leonard
James, David
Sharples, Richard


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shaw, M.


Collard, Richard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col.J. K.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Coulson, Michael
Kershw, Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kirk, Peter
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kitson, Timothy
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Curran, Charles
Leburn, Gilmour
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Storey, Sir Samuel


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, W. F.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Talbot, John E.


de Ferranti, Basil
Lloyd, Bt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfietd)
Tapsell, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longbottom, Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Temple, John M,


Duncan, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Elliot, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, s.)


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farey-Jones F. W.
Maginnis, John E.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fisher, Nigel
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marshall, Douglas
Turner, Colin


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Freeth, Denzil
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, Lady
Mills, Stratton
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gardner, Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Miss Joan







Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)
Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Walder, David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woollam, John


Walker, Peter
Witson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus


Wall, Patrick
Wise, A. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Ward, Dame Irene
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Webster, David
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, C. M.
Mr. Michael Hamilton




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hewitson, Capt, M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Snow, Julian


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stonehouse, John


Deer, George
Kelley, Richard
Stones, William


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Dempsey, James
King, Dr. Horace
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, John
Lawson, George
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McCann, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert
MacColl, James
Wade, Donald


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, William


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, A. C.
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Erie
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moody,, A. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Owen, Will



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Short and Mr. Sydney Irving.


Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.


Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — POWER STATION, WEST THURROCK (STOPPAGE OF WORK)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Four days before Christmas, 300 men employed by the firm of Babcock and Wilcox, Limited, on building a power station at West Thurrock, in Essex, were dismissed. This dismissal came as a great shock to the men themselves and to the trade union officials. There had been no previous complaint or warning, and during their two years' work on the site the men had had remarkably little dispute with the firm. Suddenly, the firm made certain allegations. I will not repeat those allegations, but will limit myself to saying that they have not been proved, they have not been examined, and the firm has so far refused a request made by the seven trade unions involved to hold an inquiry.
When working men go on strike without notice, without union approval, without normal negotiation, they come in for a good deal of criticism—they are even called "wildcats"—but here is a firm, working on a Government contract, which has gone on strike without giving notice and without any attempt at negotiations with the trade unions. That is my first complaint.
My second complaint is that those men have not received any unemployment benefit. Out of work now for nearly seven weeks, they have been refused the dole. They are not on strike. They are not suspended. They were given their cards—they were sacked. They believe that they are entitled to unemployment pay—and so do I—and their opinion and mine has been vindicated because, in a recent test case, their claim has been upheld. But even now, after all these weeks, they may have to wait another twenty-one days pending a possible appeal by the insurance officer.
My third complaint is that they were refused National Assistance. They were given various pieces of advice. For example, they were told to dip into their savings, even when their savings at

times were less than the amount allowed to other people who draw National Assistance. They were told to spend their holiday credits, even though those holiday credits are part of a national agreement and are meant for holidays, and not to subsidise the National Assistance Board. They were told to claim an Income Tax rebate. If I were to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer details about someone's Income Tax I should soon be told to mind my own business—and quite rightly, but Ministry officials should be told the same.
Apart from the hardship caused to several hundred men and their families, this action by Babcock and Wilcox has had another and alarming result. There has been a long and serious stoppage of work on a scheme of national importance. Other contracting firms are now being involved, and the whole scheme could be brought to a standstill.
I say that there should be a full inquiry. I know very well that the firm and the unions are to meet on Thursday, but that is to be merely a discussion about a possible resumption of work at West Thurrock. What is required is a full inquiry into the circumstances which led to the stoppage. The Minister should insist on that, and I would ask him these last questions. Are mass sackings like this by employers, without negotiation with the trade unions, desirable or acceptable practice? Does the Minister approve of such practice, or will he take steps to stop it?

11.10 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) in what he has said about this dispute. A great many of the people involved on the site are my constituents, and there has recently started another dispute with the same firm in which forty engineers are out on a boilerhouse being constructed at Fords, the reason being somewhat the same as in the case at West Thurrock power station.
The surprising feature of the case, in my view, is that eleven incidents were alleged as the reason for the sackings. These incidents should have been referred to the shop stewards or full-time officials to be investigated fully and dealt


with, but the firm refused any joint investigation. However, two responsible trade union officials made a very full investigation themselves and, in their opinion, the eleven alleged incidents on which the place was shut down and the men were sacked were either minor matters which had been cleared up already by the time the officials came to investigate or were accidents common in such work. In the view of these officials, there were no major matters involved at all.
It is the belief of the men and of the responsible officials of the unions concerned that these eleven incidents were just an excuse found for closing down the work when the firm wished to close it down. The men are fortified in their view of the matter by previous history at the site. There had been only one day's dispute in nearly two years on the site, since January, 1960, when a bonus scheme agreed with the unions had been introduced. The bonus scheme had been modified from time to time by agreement, and the last modification had taken place in July, 1961. Suddenly, the firm decided to scrap the whole of that bonus scheme and bring in a new one. It announced its intention to do this after no consultation at all. The effect of the new bonus scheme was, in fact, to cut the amount earned by bonus by about half. The men refused to accept the scheme when it was first put forward and asked to discuss it. They were told that unless they accepted it at once work on the site would close down. It did close down.
The firm Babcock & Wilcox has had an extraordinarily bad reputation recently for inefficiency both nationally and on this particular contract. It is alleged that money has been lost on many recent contracts undertaken by the firm, particularly on those for atomic plants. I was told of many incidents at this particular site where wrong material was set up and then, after it had been set up, it had to be taken down again, the work thus having to be done all over again. The firm appeared to be getting into difficulties with the Electricity Authority because work was behind-hand, and the men feel that the real reason for the dispute taking place is that they were sacked so that the firm

could escape the penalty clause in its contract.
As my hon. Friend said, an informal meeting is to take place on 8th February next, but it is important that the Ministry should not only hold a full inquiry, as my hon. Friend suggested, but should intervene in order to get work going again as swiftly as possible in the interests of the men who now are out of work and also in the national interest, because the country needs electricity. There was an acute shortage of electricity during the recent cold spell and the nation has a constantly growing need for more electricity. It is a great waste to have men unemployed when they ought to be doing useful work. I suggest that the Minister, in addition to carrying out an investigation into the cause of the dispute, should do his best to get work moving as soon as possible on the site in the interests of the men concerned and of the nation as a whole.

11.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): I can start on one note of agreement with both the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and, I am sure, with all the men on the site, as well as with the firm and all consumers, present and potential, in the area. Of course, I share the anxieties about the consequences of closing down some of the operations in the construction of this important power station. Equally, it is no pleasure to me or to anybody else to see men out of work and a firm also suffering for these reasons.
I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock will forgive me if I turn first to a point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham. He has made the allegation—he did it also at Question Time, I think—that the trouble might have been deliberately provoked by the firm to escape, or find good reason for escaping, the consequences of the penalty clauses in the contract. I understand that there is no penalty clause in the contract. I have no evidence of other possible reasons for this allegation. It would not therefore, be fair for me to talk on this with a lack of direct evidence, nor should anybody else do so.
A number of points have been raised, perhaps the most important of which


concerning my Ministry is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour should set up an inquiry. This raises the whole question of procedures in the settlement of disputes. I do not wish to talk tonight in any way about the merits or demerits of the dispute, and I should clearly be out of order if I were to do this before such an inquiry were made.
We are left with the question of whether it is wise and sensible to have an inquiry at all. That is clearly a matter for consideration. It has already been mentioned that negotiations on the site will be resumed on Thursday. I feel most strongly that that process of negotion, which is well within the proper procedural arrangements of the engineering industry, should continue without any threat or sanction from me. I am certain at this stage it should be left quite unfettered.
As both hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend's officers have been closely following what has been going on in this dispute, and nothing that I have said should be taken to mean that we are completely ignorant about matters on the site. We should, however, have to make a directly interested examination of what has gone on before we could possibly decide whether an inquiry should be held. So far, because the procedures agreed between the two sides are by no means exhausted, my right hon. Friend has had no opportunity to settle down and consider officially whether there should be an inquiry.

Mr. Delargy: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about a dispute. It is not really a dispute. It takes two to make a dispute. It is not the men who have caused this state of affairs, but the bosses by the action they have taken. Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that at no time should there be an inquiry into what has been happening over the last two months, that it should be left simply at that and that work should be resumed as though nothing had happened?

Mr. Green: Perhaps the hon. Member did not understand what I was getting at. I know of no other word than "dispute" to cover the situation. By so describing it, I am doing my proper job and not taking sides or entering into the merits or demerits of the situation.

If my right hon. Friend were to say that he would hold an inquiry while the procedures that exist between the two sides are not exhausted—and, indeed, are about to be resumed on Thursday—the proper procedures would be prevented from functioning. I am quite sure that would not be a result desired by any trade union or indeed by any employer. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that we are really trying to follow a proper, steady, consistent line in our approach to the labour relations of the two parties, and in securing, where-ever possible, that agreed procedures between unions and employers are followed and carried through. That, I understand, is the situation in this case, and therefore, I am quite certain that at the present time an inquiry would be misplaced.
I think it is unnecessary for me to detail what are the agreed procedures in the engineering industry, but I am willing to do so if either hon. Member wishes to know.
I will now turn to the other two questions which the hon. Gentleman raised. Hitherto, I hope, I have not been giving a dusty answer, because it is not my desire to do so, but I am in some difficulty in answering the points about unemployment pay and National Assistance because they are not strictly the concern of my Ministry. We act, so to speak, as paying agents and I think both hon. Members know this. Matters of policy and principle on these two points, therefore, should really be referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Delargy: I was aware of that, but I raised it on this Adjournment because I could hardly ask for two Adjournments on the same subject, and I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman will draw these matters to the attention of his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Green: I appreciate that point, and I think the hon. Gentleman and I understand each other on this matter.
Perhaps I can briefly set out what is the general rule in the payment of unemployment benefit and of National Assistance in cases of this sort. They are general rules which we as agents of course seek to follow. By Section 43 (3) of the National Insurance Act,


1946, and the Regulations made under it claims for unemployment benefit are decided by three statutory authorities—the insurance officer, the local tribunal, and the National Insurance Commissioner. The insurance officer may refer the case for decision to the local tribunal or may himself decide it. If he decides it himself there is a right of appeal to the local tribunal. There is a further right of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner against a decision of the local tribunal. These, of course, are built in for the protection of the individuals who may be affected.
Section 13 (1) of the National Insurance Act lays down that subject to certain provisos a person who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that we could get up an argument about the word "dispute" at this point, but I hope that the point will become clearer as I go on.
A trade dispute is defined by Section 13 (6, b) of the Act as being any dispute between employers and employees or between employees and employees which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms or conditions of employment, of any persons, whether they are in the employment of the employer with whom the dispute arises or not.
In this particular case there was some doubt about the unemployment benefit claims made by those affected by the stoppage at the West Thurrock site. It was therefore arranged, by agreement with the trade unions concerned, that two test claims, representative of the men involved, should be referred to the statutory authorities. The insurance officer referred these to the local tribunal for decision. I understand that the cases were heard on 1st February and that the tribunal decided that the claims should be allowed. I have, of course, no power to comment on or to intervene in the decision of the statutory authorities. The insurance officer has a right of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners against the tribunal's decision. When he exercises this right

within twenty-one days, the payment of benefit is suspended pending the Commissioners' decision. That is the factual matter on which the hon. Member can base an approach to my right hon. Friend if he wishes to pursue it further.
The question of National Assistance to those affected by the closure is a question for the National Assistance Board. Section 9 (1, 3) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, however, provides that an assistance grant shall not be made to meet the requirements of any person, other than the requirements of dependants, for any period during which he is without employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment. The term "trade dispute" has the same meaning as in the National Insurance Act, the definition which I read. That is the factual information, and I hope that it will be of use to the hon. Member.
I think that I should end where I began. For the reasons which I have given I can say no more tonight than that with all the normal procedures agreed within the engineering industry continuing as a consequence of the resumption of talks on Thursday, I hope that this matter will come right and that work will rapidly be resumed.
I cannot possibly say what might and what might not be my right hon. Friend's attitude if or when the proper procedures are exhausted, but I assure both hon. Members that there is quite a lot of room within the procedures still left for this dispute—and I must still call it a dispute—to be reasonably and promptly settled. I want to see these agreed procedures work, and I am sure that everybody else concerned with the matter wants to see them work. I am extremely anxious to say nothing tonight which will prevent them from working properly, or prejudice either side in the resumed talks on Thursday.

Mr. Parker: Surely the hon. Member recognises that the dispute started on 21st December and that from then to 8th February is a long time before the first meeting takes place to try to settle it. Surely the Minister of Labour can do something to try to speed up the normal procedures if they are not working smoothly.

Mr. Green: I see the point of the intervention, but I cannot stress too much that it is the experience of every Minister and junior Minister of Labour that if one attempts prematurely or unwisely to intervene in a trade dispute or industrial dispute while the procedures which are agreed and built in between the two sides are still not exhausted, one destroys the basis upon which disputes are settled—that is by negotiation between the two sides of industry. It must often have been tempting for a Minister of Labour—I refer to Ministers of both parties—to say, "This is going on very slowly and something is wrong." The temptation to intervene has, in my view rightly, generally been resisted until the point of time is reached when

the normal procedures are genuinely exhausted. Then a new initiative must come from somewhere. If it is to come from the Ministry of Labour it must surely come from a Ministry which has not previously made any judgment on what may be the merits or demerits of the case.
I am concerned to make it as clear as I can to both hon. Members, and through them to their constituents, that we must do our level best to be above this battle, and to enter no arguments ahead of the events on either side.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.